Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton Assistance! 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I removed a prod from this article, because I'm not sure of notability (but think it is). I'm adding it here because I'd like to see a community perspective on it. Abstain G1  gg  y  !  01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment : Why is this being listed? J. D. Redding 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Becuase G1ggy wanted community input on the book's notability. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Because it was tagged with a prod stating that it was not notable, and I'm not sure if that's true. I didn't want to just remove the tag and leave it (in case it should be deleted), so I removed the tag and brought it here.  G1  gg  y  !  02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the one who prodded the book. I'm unable to find a single review of the book or any other non-trivial reliable source and the book has only about 600 google hits even counting duplicates (see this search which doesn't even use the full title). JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? This is well known recent biography of Tesla. The only other one would be Wizard. J. D. Redding 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that so that this is well known? I'd be happy to keep the book if we have non-trivial reliable sources that talk about the book, but so far the best I've found is a short paragraph description here. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I get what you mean by "RS. Is that to discount the general public that have cited the work? I'll see some review in NYT or something ... but anyone that looks into Nikola Tesla will come up with all the book that are listed in the further reading, as cited below. There is not alot more biographies out there (I have looked). J. D. Redding 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it is cited in David S Alexander's paper titled, "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II". J. D. Redding 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These are some libraries that have the book. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/50931289 J. D. Redding 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having the book and having it cited doesn't make it notable. I'm sure it is an interesting book, heck I'll probably read it when I get a chance. But if we don't have any reliable sources about the subject were a bit paralyzed. JoshuaZ 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #348,887 in Books" Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If I have input. But it is notable in regards to Nikola Tesla, listed in the Nikola Tesla for some time. One of the few solid references for him. J. D. Redding 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (PS., I was going to do all the books there, if they are not shot down everytime.)
 * comment If they have reliable sources that talk about the books so the books are notable so that we can actually write things that aren't original research then that's fine. I would suggest finding reliable sources such as book reviews before writing the articles or be ready to provide such sources. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Using primary material results in secondary material; this article is secondary material. This is not WP:OR (which is primary material alone without any sources). I'll also look around for some other secondary sources, though. J. D. Redding 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy requires articles to be tertiary, not secondary material. JulesH 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No vote I can see points for for and against, will wait out. --Whsitchy 03:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - from what I just read in this article, it seems ok, it has references to, if there are issues lets just clean it up, no reason to delete it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 04:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There's only one independent review linked from the article, and it's brief, but quite strong: in Midwest Book Review, "mandatory reading for all students of Tesla". —David Eppstein 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll use that quote in the intro, if that is ok? J. D. Redding 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. —David Eppstein 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to keep now that I've found a second published review (Nexus magazine, as listed in the article). —David Eppstein 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it's borderline notable with two independent sources so let's give the benefit of doubt to keeping. Realkyhick 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, yes there are reviews. I've been unable to locate a copy of the issue of Nexus to view that, but if it's anything like the first review, I'd say the depth of coverage isn't enough to justify this article.  I'm also concerned about whether or not Nexus should be considered a reliable source, as what I see about it suggests that it has a rather strong bias towards espousing fringe theories.  Also, the book is a small press book (such books are rarely notable) from a press that seems best known for its coverage of psuedoscientific subjects.  JulesH 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It has been out 5 years and only has 2 reviews. No mention in any of the publications covered by Proquest. It appears to contain a fair amount of "free energy" pseudoscience, and is full of claims that Tesla did thus and such when the history of the matter shows failures to excite energy waves in the earth or the atmosphere. His actual contributions in normal alternating current motors and generators are given little coverage per the contents, in favor of claims that endless energy can be gotten without use of prime movers or fuel. Hoaxy. Edison 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any real reason why this should be deleted? A few years and some reviews is a good notable topic. There are others. BTW, the POV BS about his "actual contributions" neglects the information in various reliable sources. The history of the matter shows Wireless energy transfer (such as his experiments with the magnifying transmitter) was proven by Tesla. J. D. Redding 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Fails WP:BK quite solidly. The first review is very short and so does not count as "non-trivial".  The Nexus review I cannot find, but without the other review there can be no claim of "multiple ... publications" on this book.  No other assertion of notability exists. --EMS | Talk 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not match my understanding of "non-trivial" — it's intended, as I understand it, more to refer to situations such as a book title appearing as part of a longer list of titles but not discussed in any detail. E.g. WP:N gives as an example of "trivial coverage" a one-sentence mention of a band in a biography of someone else. —David Eppstein 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N has recently been changed from requiring "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources" to "significant coverage in reliable sources". Significant seems to me to be a higher bar than non-trivial, although there is the implication that a single in-depth source would be adequate.  But I'm still unsure that Nexus is a reliable source, being primarily a publisher of fringe theories. JulesH 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - the article reads like a book review, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Is that what WP is for? Amazon.com has an open facility for readers to write book reviews.  I would suggest that is where this belongs.  I am not clear what WP policy is on this, but would have thought that a book would need to be very notable (or notorious e.g. controversial) to require a WP article.  The article is presumably adequately sourced - it describes a book and the book is itself the source.  The appropriate course is to ensure that the views expressed in the book are reflected in the WP biographical article on Tesla, and to cite the book as the source for that.  However, I hope that the article's author can find ways to contribute substantive articles on the broader subject of the History of Science and Technology; I am sure there is more to be done on this.  Peterkingiron 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are not clear on WP policy on articles about books, WP:BK would be a good place to start. —David Eppstein 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the policy on whether or not we should have an article about a book, not what the content of the article should be. I don't think there is such a policy, to be honest, although it would probably be somewhat similar to Writing about fiction if it did exist.  And, no, I don't think this article is appropriate as it stands: it spends too much time discussing the topic of the book, rather than the book itself.  The article should focus on placing the book in context in the world by describing the critical reaction to it, IMO.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have been enough reaction to it to produce such an article. JulesH 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; an article on the book is warranted, and the current content isn't worthless. The introduction could be cut down to avoid duplicating info already on related articles. John Vandenberg 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the book has an ISBN number ISBN-13: 978-1931882040 and therefore meets threshold standards. The content of the book may be WP:Fringe, but the book exists and if there are any problems with the article content itself (such as POV) then those should be fixed. The article editors should be asked for any factual material and the tone should be suitably fixed. Tagging for deletion should not be used for gathering feedback from others because one does not understand a subject. Use of prods to force article improvement is also in bad taste. Shyamal 07:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.