Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conductive wireless charging

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conductive wireless charging

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

Page does not depict a notable and unique technology. It is not about a variety of wireless power transfer, as the title might imply. It is about regular charging, but the wires instead terminate in the shape of a pad instead of a plug. Maybe a section on "plugless" chargers can be added to the article on battery chargers if the information is deemed noteworthy by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarkreth (talk • contribs)

Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wireless power. There are inductive and conductive wireless charges, but the former is far more popular, and the article we have for that, Inductive charging, is itself currently proposed for merger to wireless power. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure that Wireless power is a suitable target, given that conductive charging does not make use of any form of electromagnetic ("wireless") transmission of power. Instead, it is just a matter of design of a safe form of conductor pad which connects without a plug or socket - Plugless power or Plugless charging would be the subject. Since those targets don't exist, it may be best to leave the article where it is; or perhaps to rename it, but we don't need AfD for that. The article is cited, the topic does exist and the technical problem is not without interest, so the need to have it at AfD at all does seem rather doubtful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I'm not sure I follow. Both this article and wireless power about charging a device without wires between the [e.g. phone] and the [charging station/mechanism]. Why is "plugless" more accurate than "wireless"? I don't think anybody means there aren't wires involved somewhere -- just that the [phone] and [charger] don't have to be connected via wire. I don't think anybody disputes the topic exists -- it's just much less popular than inductive [wireless] charging and looks to be something that could be encompassed by the wireless power article. But if I'm misunderstanding something I would, of course, be content to change my !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, the term "wireless" used long ago to mean "radio", as opposed to wired (telephone/telegraph). Sorry if that is too dinosaur to be comprehensible. Since the charging pad makes actual electrical contact, the electrons flow the usual way from mains to device, without any transmission and reception of radio waves. The inductive devices, on the other hand, work at a (short) distance through air or plastic. Hope that is clear, the difference is in fact simple and sharp. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2015 (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.