Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla principle


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tesla principle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Piece of Tesla fancruft, not a real thing or an encyclopedic thing. Tesla sold the idea to a gullible reporter in 1911, the Electrical Experimenter spewed it out again in January 1919 , and it has never been heard of again. Lead in pipe "Archaism" seems correct, this is a dicdef, if even that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - per above. Tesla is a cult figure with a huge echo chamber of fansites that make up pseudoscientific myths about him, and this article is just part of the hype. --ChetvornoTALK 20:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - I did a GB search and the first several references I found to the precise phrase were all referring to something different - it appears to have been used in the 1890s an early 1900s to describe any of a number of phenomena observed by Tesla, rather than being a specific thing. The current page seemingly accepts this lack of specificity, "Historically, the term Tesla principle was used to describe (amongst other things) . . ." before seemingly arbitrarily providing one specific usage, supporting this with a citation that fails verification, simply giving the term among a list of Tesla terms without further defining it.  Something as generic as it would have to be - "Historically, the term Tesla principle described any of a number of phenomena observed by N T" is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and hardly that - it is practically a grammatical tautology.  Unless someone can bring a more specific definition/description, this doesn't pass muster. Agricolae (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Agricolae. There isn't enough to this to warrant a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2020 (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.