Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. --Core desat 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was already nominated for deletion once before but was opposed by the article's creator User:Reddi. This particular editor is a well-known POV-pusher for Tesla-involved and related pseudoscience and has basically written this article as a coatrack to avoid the scrutiny of other editors who have opposed his insertion of unverifiable prose in the past. The book is not notable per the book notability guideline, primarily because the reviews it received were neither serving a general audience nor independent of the book itself. The one review it received in the Midwest Book Review posts was for cataloging purposes only and not for general consumption. Such reviews can be found on literally hundreds of thousands of books so this review definitely does not confer notability per WP:BK. The other review was written up in a self-promoting and vanity publication by Marcus Allen (publisher) who is famous for his moonbat theories and is a close associate of the author. They are both members of the paradigm research group which strives to bring fringe ideas out into the open. Therefore, the review in Nexus magazine can hardly be considered to be independent of the source. Let's also consider the publisher: Adventures Unlimited Press. This publisher is basically a vanity press for conspiracy theories based out of Illinois with affiliates in various out-of-the-way places were the owner, Jerry E. Smith, has friends. (I'll also note that Jerry E. Smith is a cosponsor of the paradigm research group and an associate of both Marcus Allen and the book's author.) This outfit does not supply books through normal channels but instead pushes out media for various conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience enthusiasts. Yeah, the book has an ISBN, but those in the publishing world know that it doesn't take much to get one of those. Simply having an ISBN doesn't make one's book notable. It is clear that by the criteria listed at Wikipedia, this book is not notable. We have is a basic violation of WP:FRINGE with a book that represents the original research of the author without any critical review written by an editor who notoriously pushes his POV all across this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like an ad. Fails WP:BK. Unless there is a considerable change to the article, WP:NPOV I say delete.MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - one reliable source with a trivial mention is not notability. "Deftly compiled and edited by Thomas Valone, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature: Tesla's Science Of Energy is a straightforward look at Nikola Tesla's iconoclastic dream and scientific ambition for the development and utilization of a wireless transmission of power itself. Investigating Tesla's alternative to transmission lines and how his ideas could have changed (and may yet change) the shape of human civilization itself, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature is a simply fascinating read offering a unique perspective on an idea that may well have found its time at last. Composed of a series of articles contributed by an impressive spectrum of informed and informative writers, the essays are grouped into three sections: History of Tesla's Early Electrical Life; Principles of Wireless Power Transmission; and Miscellaneous Articles and Tesla Reference Material. Simply put, Harnessing The Wheelwork Of Nature is mandatory reading for all students of Tesla's remarkable life and contributions to science." The preceeding is the entire review that would be from a mainstream source.  Nexus magazine is not a mainstream source.  --Rocksanddirt 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The 150-word review posted above fails to meet WP:BK, section 1. &mdash; BillC talk 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I worked on fixing up the citations to reviews in this article from its former worse state. But in general I think the requirement of having multiple published reviews sets a very low bar for articles; it should be possible to find such reviews for a very large proportion of academic monographs, for instance, and I don't think most of those deserve articles (the subject of the monograph, quite likely, but the book itself, no). I'd rather see either a combination of WP:BK #1 and one of #2–#5, or a strong pass of #1 rather than a just-under-the-wire pass. This book may have #1, under a liberal interpretation of nontriviality and independence, but not strongly and it doesn't have any of the others. —David Eppstein 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. *cough* solar panels are not connected by wires to the sun.  Wireless transmission of power is an obvious reality.  You guys aren't worried about the big scary machine in The Prestige (film) are you?  Good grief.   Delete all these books and all the screenwriters will be out of a job. Jok2000 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably the strangest keep !vote I have ever read. What does this even mean? Keep the article so that screenwriters remain employed? I didn't realize that Wikipedia articles were so important in the funding of the entertainment business. ScienceApologist 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well most of the users may be in grade school, but I follow categories and links and references and buy thousands of dollars worth of movies and books based on them. Many users are interested in entertainment, not hard-science. This Tesla stuff goes both ways. Hm, and actually, I cheaped-out recently and mostly rented movies in one category I found. Has this book been banned at any public libraries yet?  My collection from the list of banned books has been neglected of late. Jok2000 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? ScienceApologist 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well enough fun and games. The main problem with the article we are discussing is that the introduction to this book, edited by a Ph.D, and with articles by P.Eng and IEEE members with illustrations that can be found at www.pbs.org/tesla is not as described in the article.  Tesla was whining about being thwarted yes, but because you cannot *BILL* the end-user when transmitting power wirelessly.  The goal of the author (overstated as it was) was to capitalize on the *efficiency* of not using wires.  You still need a nuke plant on the other end generating the power.  If the article stays, the description of  the introduction must go, however. Jok2000 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete In addition to what SA said, which is sufficient, the first review is is a short one-paragraph blurb and is trivial. Cardamon 08:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What SA said would be sufficient if the contents of the book itself were WP:Fringe, and although with 10,000 books in my collection I can't always go cover to cover on many of my books, this one appears to talk about existing Wikipedia topics such as Wireless transmission of power, Wardenclyffe Tower as well as the previously mentioned [PBS Tesla page] giving references and such. The book is also on sale here in Toronto at remarkably conventional bookstores (ones with blacklists yet).  The book's introduction mentions ZPE and the book ends with 12 ads for WP:Fringe books, however it appears to be part of the marketing IMHO. Jok2000 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the book is just not notable. It doesn't seem to be even close to meeting any of the criteria in Notability (books).  However, if someone were to dig up multiple nontrivial independent published book reviews, with some of them written for general audiences, I would have to change my mind.  Cardamon 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Googling leads to many reviews but seems to fall a bit short of providing notability for it. Someone with more time on their hands needs to do that work. Jok2000 20:56, 29 October 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.