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 redirect to Dowsing. This is binding only insofar as there is clear consensus here that this should not be a separate article. Editorial consensus may subsequently determine how to address the potential redirect targets, e.g., through hatnotes or disambiguation.  Sandstein  21:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earth radiation[edit]

Earth radiation (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)

Non-notable fringe science, no reliable sources found. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough reliable sources discuss this topic. In the past it was submitted for afd with agreement to find reliable sources, but none were ever added. I had to remove two sources because they had been cited incorrectly. Note that the last afd was a vote to Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If this is notable, then WP:FRIND-compliant sources should be straightforward to locate. This doesn't seem to be the case. jps (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to Dowsing. There's nothing remotely notable enough about this subject except for its connection to dowsing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to outgoing longwave radiation with a hatnote there pointing to dowsing but frankly I cannot imagine a satisfying writing for that hatnote.

The problem is that there are two potential redirect targets, Outgoing longwave radiation and Dowsing (with some merging to the target in the second case), which are radically different interpretations of the term. Readers could legitimately come looking for one and end up on the other confused, if we were to simply redirect.

Even though I could not find any FRIND-compliant source for the use in dowsing context, my browsing convinced me beyond reasonable doubt that the term is widely used. As such, I would have no problem with a redirect to dowsing per WP:R#KEEP #3 even if there is no source. I failed to find a guideline that mandates ironclad sourcing for redirects, and even if there was one it would be a great time to invoke WP:IAR. However, I feel much less comfortable with the inclusion of any visible text (such as a DAB page) when no RS is available.

A cynic way to proceed would be to keep the article with the following "reliable source": [1] (peer-reviewed, published by Elsevier!), cherry-pick the sentence "In folklore, earth radiation has been strongly linked with the search for radiation zones and lines and has included the use of the forked rod." and pretend to ignore the rest of the article (which is garbage).Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Outgoing longwave radiation is a wonderful idea. I still think some of the text could be salvaged for use in Dowsing, but I'm not sure how much. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually was a redirect after the last AFD but was restored a few years later.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor issue, but worth noting. Two references that were added to the article do not mention earth radiation in the context of what this article is about. User Nixdorf added these here at the bottom of the article [2] in 2007 claiming they offer a skeptic view (one is by Steven Weinberg, the other is a mainstream geophysics textbook), but these books do not even discuss occult concepts or this type of 'earth radiation' from a dowsing point of view, nowhere at all in either of these books is it mentioned. Why this user added these books I am not sure. We should always be suspicious when random books are added but no page numbers. Move forward to 2009, and user Hrafn [3] actually inserted them as citations into the article, obviously without checking these sources. Note that since 2009 those references have remained on the article. We are now in 2016. So we have two false references on the article that do not even mention this type of earth radiation, yet those sources remained on the article for 7 years until I just removed them. This is the sort of thing in my opinion that damages Wikipedia. I understand that this is a crackpot subject that probably not many people care about and I don't even see how this article has survived for so long, but users should really spend time in examining sources and make sure they have been cited correctly. HealthyGirl (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the references if they were confusing :( these were taken from the Swedish sceptic Hanno Essén very critical essay Tomtar, troll och Currykryss (literally "Gnomes, Trolls and Curry-line-crossings) and this article per se was also linked from the WP article itself at this point. At the end of the article he references a few books pro- and con- the earth radiation theory, the two books by Manfred Curry and Ernst Hartmann we still reference on the "pro-" side and the two books (Robinson & Coruh, Weinberg) were the only English literature listed as "con-". I agree it is not a good practice, but also note that this was in 2007, and WP (especially the quality standards and citation practices) have improved since. I guess we all mature as editors and people as time goes along, also the crowd as a whole. Nevertheless I think your stance is a bit agressive, so can you please take it down a notch? We're two sceptics criticizing a third sketic source as source of proper sceptic links, it's a bit tragic. Nixdorf (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to dowsing, with a hatnote about black-body radiation from Earth. The term "Earth radiation" seems only to occur in the context of dowsing. There don't seem to be any references to it outside the dowsing community. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the subject is pseudoscientific but widespread, especially in Europe, and therfore has encyclopedic interest. Nixdorf (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can some evidence be provided to show this is is widespread in Europe?--67.68.163.254 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, Nixdorf added two books to the article that do not even discuss this type of earth radiation. Considering that those false references were left on the article for seven years, anything this user says should be properly checked. There is not a shred of evidence it is 'widespread'. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if the references were erroneous, but can you please take down the snarkiness a bit? I do not remember what reference these books come from any longer, and sorry if I did a mistake. But I am only trying to help. Nixdorf (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So as for the question, there is an organization called Svenska Slagruteförbundet (literally "Swedish Dowsing association) in Sweden, they refer to the phenomenon as jordstrålning/earth radiation in their periodical Slagrutan (for example here, the whole issue is centered about "harmful earth radiation"). The periodical is a printed one, published four times a year since 1982. There is a sceptic organization named Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning who have repeatedly criticized the phenomenon in their periodical Folkvett (ISSN 0283-0795), also referring to "jordstrålning/earth radiation" as the topic of critique (for example here and here, they are also linking to the Swedish wikipedia so things admittedly become a bit circular). A prominent sceptic, Jesper Jerkert, has published a critical essay, Slagrutan i tro och folkbildning on the subject. The popular science periodical Allt om Vetenskap also criticize dowsing/earth radiation. The claim above that the concept is closely associated with dowsing is correct, however dowsing is seen as an instrument and earth radiation as the purported object of investigation. Nixdorf (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to dowsing. The "suggested explanations' section there already speaks of "emanations" DeVerm (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I suggested a redirect to outgoing longwave radiation, and I still think it is the correct target for "earth radiation", but "earth rays" is more dowsing-like. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 11 May 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.