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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pasilalinic-sympathetic compass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many unsourced paragraphs, relevance not established. The apparatus appears to have been invented more than 150 years ago and, according to the article, quickly abandoned after it became clear that it did not work. Coverage only includes one article in "The Sceptic", another source that apparently has been takes down now, and an 1889 book. Laber□^T 03:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but consider moving to more common term "snail telegraph" that currently redirects there). I don't think there's any question that it didn't work, but it has received intermittent significant coverage in the years since, in books [1] [2] [3] [4], academic journals [5] [6] and magazines [7]. Qwfp (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubious -- "Historic Oddities and Strange Events " is apparently one of the sources. Does that not sum it up? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: For German-speaking editors, I've also nominated the German version of this article (which was initially translated from the English one) for deletion, read the discussion here.

• delete, incorporate into the Jules Allix article. It will not be a loss for Wikipedia, if the article will be deleted. It is even not wikilinked from Telepathy article (because it is probably worthless to add such information to the article). It is currently wikilinked as a text from Jules Allix only. It should be added as a section in the Jules Allix article as it is on the French wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just because it's an old article with few references doesn't mean that it should go - things were different when this was written NINE years ago. We don't have limited space, it's notable enough to feature in several books and magazines. Fix it (or tag it as needed) rather than delete it. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that I think this article is unfixable. If I would delete all unsourced and/or dubious content, little of the article would remain (I am not comfortable doing this while an AfD is underway). --Laber□^T 13:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Laber□^T 14:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Laber□^T 14:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The AfD at the German Wikipedia has now been closed as keep, which I appealed on the closing admins talk page. --Laber□^T 14:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (change from Redirect to Jules Allix). Not notable on its own. Would also beef up the Alix article. The article is well sourced at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The German admin declined to reopen the AfD discussion. --Laber□^T 05:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and I would request previous commentors to reconsider their !votes in light of the changes I have made to the article. This dif shows the changes I have made today. The nominator claims the article as nominated had "many unsourced paragraphs", but not counting the lede, there were no unsourced paragraphs. That said, the sourcing in the article as nominated needed improvement. The article as nominated cited 2 sources, one of which is currently a dead link. The current article cites 9. This 9 includes the original 2, plus articles from Wired and Atlas Obscura, as well as a number of older books and mentions from the late 1800s and early 1900s. With the exception of the Atlas Obscura article I tried to avoid things written more recently than 2006 because I wanted to avoid circular referencing issues. The current article includes a brief section on the influence this event had on the Paris Commune and a modern Japanese manga storyline. There is an additional magazine article that I would like to look at and possibly include, but it's paid and I don't feel like paying for it - the reference for that is on the talk page if anyone wants to look at it. At any rate, I feel the current iteration of the article is an improvement over what was nominated for deletion, and adequately demonstrates compliance with verifiabilty and notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.