Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dielectric wireless receiver

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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dielectric wireless receiver

Dielectric wireless receiver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Also Wireless dielectric receiver.

This appears to be a completely new scientific invention, or relatively new and untested concept [1] [2]. As such, it likely falls well short on the WP:NOR guideline. I cannot find a guideline, though it has to exist somewhere, that says that Wikipedia is not for new concepts which are just being submitted to a scientific journal. The Evil Spartan 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This article is well sourced by peer-reviewed journals, like this. I agree that new inventions and advertising should stay out of Wiki, but if this item has been around long enough to appear in peer-reviewed journals I think it's worth keeping Wiki on the cutting edge. Renee 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I understand that this has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, but I feel that including this still verges on crystal ballery, and steering clear might not be a bad idea until it garners some more mainstream acceptance. Rackabello 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not original research, published in a few articles in good peer reviewed journals. That should be the basis for a decision to keep or delete, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors as to whether it will be important in the future, or whether radios are actually built using it. Frome readin g the Wikipedia article, it seems to be saying that opto-isolation (a well established technique for isolating electronic circuits) could be used to keep high voltage electromagnetic pulses from getting into radios and destroying the transistors. Edison 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Everything proposed in a journal article is not notable. There needs to be some evidence that others than the authors of the papers think it notable. DGG (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic of electromagnetic weapons is notable, as evidenced by the first referenced article in IEEE Spectrum, which only discusses the field generally and not the ADNERF receiver being described in this article. The ADNERF proposal is contained in one conference paper and one journal paper, both by the same authors. There is no third-party commentary on the importance or workability of ADNERF, so I'm voting Delete. (Journal publication of the idea just implies that the experiments were good and the calculations correct, not that the idea is important or ready for general use). The creator of the WP article is named Ayazi, which is the same as one of the paper authors, so there seems to be a conflict of interest. EdJohnston 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Explains a valid concept, well laid out and cited. Mbisanz 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG & per nom. Literally millions of trial balloons for inventions, products, or other things exist, they're not all notable. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 28 September 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.