Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torsion field (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   speedy keep (non-admin closure). ErikHaugen (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Torsion field
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Torser.info requests deletion of this article at OTRS 2010092210005623. I have no opinion. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * speedy keep I can't see anything wrong with the article which would be a valid reason for deletion. Is a reason given in the ticket? To be honest this seems an attempt to censure wikipedia by a website who that has a commercial interest in making people believe torsion fields are real. Yoenit (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does seem to draw on a number of different sources, and I believe it's in line with scientific consensus on this fringe physics. What's the reason for deletion? Perhaps some kind of copyright infringement is suggested? The torser.info website appears to sell devices that rely on this fringe physics. They offer electromagnetic protection against all diseases for only €217. bobrayner (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * speedy keep. (The OTRS ticket is probably related to "Dear Wikipedia: Get your shit off my search results. (...)"?).
 * This pseudoscience is notable, and it's part of the rise in pseudoscience in Russia. See:

"'Naturally the largest-scale swindles of the type associated with the torsion force are within the scope of our attention. If before swindlers tried to get into the Ministry of Defense where they promised a torsion weapon with fantastic abilities, now the focus of this "activity" has shifted to peaceful professions associated with oil and gas exploration, ecology, magical transformations of medicines obtained after irradiation with torsion generators, etc. etc. (...) the torsion scam, which I consider to be the largest in the entire history of Russian pseudoscience (...) not contradicting scientific hypotheses. Serious and respected scientists are engaged in a search for methods to prove their existence. (...) in 1987 then-Prime Minister N. I. Ryzhkov did not resist the alluring promises of swindlers who promised secret instantaneous communications with any point on the globe, including submarines, bringing an enemy army to a state of complete idiocy, and a number of other wonders. The state allocated 500 million rubles for this scam (about $700 million at today's exchange rate). (...) As far as I know, the Ministry of Defense in the new Russia, too, continued to pay for the torsion swindles, but no longer on the same scale. The number of swindlers has grown. Torsion firms spring up one after another. (...) The government of Kuban' requested money from Moscow to clean Gelendzhik Bay. The scam succeeded beautifully. After torsion "processing", in 1997 the water analyses in the Bay turned out to be completely satisfactory. [the water had apparently cleaned itself because there were no further discharges] (...) The torsion figures offered the Moscow [City] government to clean the Yauza [River] for 160 million rubles. But it was a disaster; [an official asked to make a test at a small creek to see if it worked before spending millions, and the torsioners refused] (...) They proposed, for example, to irradiate old oil wells with torsion generators. A commission was created. [a control experiment showed that there was no significant effect] So the large sum was snatched from the fishhook. But four regions in Russia paid for torsion oil exploration after all. As long as there are corrupt officials there will be torsion "technologies"…."

"The authors of the "discovery" applied to the Ministry of Science of Russia and Moscow City Government with a request for funds for the construction of industrial plants, and more (...) replacing Wire Moscow trolleybuses and trams [with] almost superconducting, copper [wires]. [the power savings] could be close to half of existing power stations of Moscow. [A study was done by two Russian Physics and the head of the Office of Basic Research Russian Ministry of Science. Some quotes:] said that the issue is very clear, there is no point wasting time on this nonsense and offers to go to drink coffee. (...) shared the view but ask[ed] him to make the necessary measurements (...) the Nobel Prize for this issue now will have to wait. The results will be reported to the leadership of Ministry of Science of Russia" (google translation)


 * A report from the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) explain how the Ministry of Defence started investing money in a torsion field superweapon program, how an academic complained to the USSR Academy of Sciences, how its "General Physics and Astronomy Branch" sent a complaint to the USSR Supreme Soviet committee, and how this comittee made a decree baned "The Shameful Practice of Financing Pseudoscientific Research From State Sources"Pseudoscience. How Does It Threaten Science and the Public?.


 * So, spending of millions of dollars by different Russian government bodies in different occasions, notable part of a more general phenomenon, repeated involvement of the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc. I assume that a few more sources exist in Russian language. This is a notable subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * P.D.: And two articles on Skeptical Inquirer"“Energy” and “informational therapy” are often commonly used as pseudoscientific terms in Russia, usually tied to so-called “torsion fields.”" --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * speedy keep: There's nothing so bad about this article that it has to go. I've tagged it as NPOV and for RESCUE, because of the non-neutral tone and a lack of references in certain locations (see Talk:Torsion field). But there's no reason whatsoever that this article cannot stay or be brought fully up to snuff. -- BenTels (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BenTels (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Correct me if I am a wrong, but ain't ARS intended for articles which are actually in any real danger of being deleted? This one already has 4 keep votes. Yoenit (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't yet know why somebody wants this article deleted. Maybe a really good reason will be unveiled in the near future, which would make all those keep votes redundant. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Truth? I'm not completely sure. As far as I can tell, it meets their instructions. I'm also hoping this will attract attention to the fixable issues faster (perhaps even from me ;-) ). -- BenTels (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: By now, I've made some change. I can't correct everything, however (still some citations needed). -- BenTels (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not the right of anyone making fringe science claims to keep Wikipedia from presenting an encyclopedic and NPOV article about the theory. Appears to be at least notable pseudoscience, although editors fluent in both Russian and physics are needed to plow through the many references, as shown by 14000 Google results:, 1150 Google Scholar results and 1680 Google Book Search results . I expect that some mainstream physics writings such as Physical Review, Particles and fields, 2003: "various consequences of the torsion field, its impact on gravitational and cosmological solutions of the general relativistic field" also fall into that search, but those books which also talk about "zero point energy  clearly deal with the topic of this article as do books which claim torsion fields can emanate at 109 times the speed of light , homeopathy , "folding space time by mastering the unified field of the heart"  or generally fringe claims , . The article must be NPOV,and not make uncited editorial statements pooh-poohing the bizarre claims. Find reliably sources mainstream critics and present their views. It is very amusing to think of rogue states as well as world powers other than one's own spending billions of their armaments budgets on pure hokum weapons to smite their enemies, or spy on them with magic rays 109 times faster than light. P.T. Barnum would be proud. Edison (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with everyone here, as well as the last AFD. This is clearly notable, and should be kept.  Just click on Google news and you see it mentioned in various newspapers, from simple things such as a famous actor paying 100,000 for one to relieve stress, to it being a scam.  It gets mention.    D r e a m Focus  22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in an large number of reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd be happy to delete the article, if some flaw exists that makes it non-viable - but, to all appearances, it looks to be sourced information about a notable topic. I've asked Stifle (who filed the nom following from the OTRS ticket) for any clarification as to why the article's deletion was requested. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, per Stifle, no specific concern was raised in the OTRS request - so put me down as recommending Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as much as I dislike pseudoscientific theories, this article does have a well-developed reception/application section which appears to make the theory itself notable. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reasons have been presented for deletion, no apparent policy violations. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (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.