Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torsion field


 * 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The result was Speedy Keep--nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Torsion field

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

AfDs for this article: 

The article presents pseudophysics as though it were actual physics. The sources in the article, which are quite numerous, are nearly all from dubious publications. The subject of the article is obvious pseudoscience, and yet the article fails to present its subject as such (taking into account WP:UNDO and WP:FRINGE). The article fails to present sufficient reliable third-party sources (in English) demonstrating that the subject is a notable pseudoscience. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Keep - looks like obvious properly tagged pseudoscience or fringe science on first impression I get at the article. If the tone needs further clarification that can be done without deleting it.  I support active pursuit of cleaning up such articles, and properly noting/tagging pseudoscience, but see no justification in the article or above to actually delete it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Keep The article is referred to as being pseudo scientific and there are 179,000 google hits on the subject so notability is not a problem.
 * Deleting this article would be censorship pure and simple. Censorship is bad. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Google returns only 12,500 hits for me. The lead refers to the article correctly labels it as pseudoscience, but then the rest of the article (prior to my cleaning it up) referred to the "findings" of torsion field theorists as completely factual.  And without any kind of references in reliable sources.  13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly rabbit (talk • contribs)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Keep and Comment, After nomination, the bulk of the article was deleted, parts of which were perfectly V and RS within its scope. While the subject itself is not V (it does not exist in reality, not in a measurable way anyway), it exists in the imagination of a huge number of people, and that imagination has developed specific and somewhat fascinating details which are published and cross-published by all sort of sources. Those sources are not RS in terms of proving the torsion fields exist, but they are RS in terms of what the adherents of the theory think about them - same as with any other pseudoscience. I don't want to revert 10k of deletions, a lot of which was indeed crackpot mumbling that the fans of the theory have added (and will re-add, no doubt), but I will try to restore what is more descriptive of it when I find time. --Cubbi (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment See also my comment above. Indeed, the sources are reliable as primary sources for ascertaining what torsion field proponents views are.  (The lack of secondary sources is another issue altogether.)  However, the article made no attempt to differentiate the views of the primary torsion field sources it cited and those of the scientific mainstream: a textbook violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.  For instance, one of the more egregious (now deleted) offenders was this passage:
 * These simple generators proved to be a powerful tool for a wide range of experiments:


 * Transfer of inebriating quality of ethyl alcohol to pure water with none of the toxic effects of actual alcohol[20][21]
 * Increase of hardness of pearlitic pig-iron.
 * Most of the article was similarly dedicated to substantiating the nonsense put forth by proponents. Silly rabbit (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This could be a good example of where cleanup would be better than deletion -- Some proponents claim that... -- those two references (which led to the articles in a crackpot journal "Free search") were good to show that "axion field" is yet another name in use for the same thing. Plus, together with the shameless NIH application that you've kept, it shows that the idea of torsion alcoholic water wasn't just made up by one guy for a grant here, it crossed continents. --Cubbi (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. The topic clearly merits an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep After removing the more serious policy offenses there does appear to be salvageable content. I would like to withdraw the nomination, or close with keep. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep--Filll (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The article does discuss psudo science but clearly calls it that so it is informative and NOT deceptive. CaptinJohn (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (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.