Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer

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. A really lenghty discussion. But, a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell. However, the subject received extensive coverage, therefore an existence of this article is justified. All issues can be addressed by editing the article and not by deleting it. So, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage, not here. Editors are reminded that the editing and sourcing of this article requires special care, as outlined in a previous arbitration case on cold fusion. Tone 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got the whole university backing you. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does is the claim made that the nuclear changes are made via chemical effects. You repeat this false claim many times throughout this discussion and it is of no value to the discussion. Zedshort (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious misconception as to the Rossi technology. High pressures and elevated temperatures are used, not to mention the alleged catalyst. Diffusing into nickel is not enough.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that there are few 'conceptions', 'mis' or otherwise, involved. We simply have no reliable source whatsoever on what (if anything) the E-Cat contains, never mind how (if) it works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski is obviously unqualified to make any of the above statements. All his claims are demonstrably false or completely nonsensical. It is glaringly obvious that he is completely out of his area of expertise.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been to a fertilizer factory making ammonia by the ton; if nuclar reactions were ocurring at even 0.001% of the level that this scam supposedly makes, the plant would have been a radioactive wasteland. You cannot transmute elements by chemical means. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. There is very strong evidence that a 1MW system of this has been sold to a customer - see Fox news . [1] where several eye witness reports are quoted. This is a very strange time to delete this, just as a massive publicity campaign is starting around the launch of this technology. And it is a disgrace to think this is 'pseudo-science' as 2 well known physicists based at one of the oldest universities in the world (Bologna) are working on this. A colleague, who studied under Focardi, has confirmed his credentials to me, so I personally know this is no simple scam as implied by the afd campaign.--hughey (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. It is not based on junk science but on the works of Focardi et al. who published in "Il nuovo cimento", the most important Italian physics journal. See "Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems". Stengl (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Afd not justified. Wshymanski what you know about the energy catalyzer and cold fusion wouldn't fill the tiny amount of space between your ears. Why don't you go rub the two iq points you have together and see if you can start a fire like cavemen in the past. Stop wasting our time. Ldussan (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. If the reason for deletion is that you believe the device is a scam, why not wait just another 3 months or 6 months to let it be proven a scam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.34 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Afd not justified. Forbes has 3 articles on it in last 15 days. It has made news for last 10 months in wash post, fox news also. As yet, nobody knows for sure, if its a scam or something real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.164.26 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Afd not justified. This is not a free energy scam or pseudoscience(it has not been proved to be a scam or pseudoscience). It seems like a tendentious Afd proposal made by someone who doesn′t like the subject of the article.--86.125.176.31 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply by nominator. It claims to transmute elements by chemical processes. Every such claim is incorrect, either due to ignorance or fraud. ( Please cite a counterexample.) This fellow claims to have scientists working with him, so he's not ignorant. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Afd not justified. There is no pseudoscience involved AND media coverage is quite respectable.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator The article says hydrogen atoms mutate nickel into copper by what appears to be chemical means. If someone posted an article about spinning flax into gold, we'd shoot it down unless it was clearly labelled fairy tales. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this story is developing along the same line as every free-energy scammer of the last 1000 years. As another example of overheated claims that would overturn what we know of science, it's not particularly notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article says 'chemical means' that is an error that should be corrected. The energy created by chemical processes is insufficient by some orders of magnitude.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator The first edit by that IP address is above. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Afd not justified. The nominator uses his personal OR to argue this Afd. Media coverage is substantial. The nominator appears to be clueless on the topic. Media coverage (section got deleted for dubious reasons) and much more media has reported on the latest demonstrations. Wired, Forbes ... --POVbrigand (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - I have already outed myself as single purpose, please note as per WP:SPA to have my comment given full weight regardless of any tag.
• Keep Although the science seems dodgy to say the least, media coverage is plentiful. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, or contravenes the laws of physics. The article could do with a cleanup and may be a little on the long side, but the tone seems neutral to me. I think an overhaul would be preferable to a deletion. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator Every time a starlet goes out without panties there's a lot of coverage, too. But it's not significant to the encyclopedia. Non-trivial coverage makes for notability. Major discoveries in physics aren't announced on Fox News and there's no indication this scam is any more notable than any other free-energy scam. Has this one bilked more people out of money than the average energy scam yet? How is this particular scam encyclopedia-worthy? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominator is merely ranting, not a serious Afd --POVbrigand (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Afd not justified. Nominator merely asserts it's a scam with nothing to back this up. The likelihood of it being a scam has diminished with time.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Most people here seem to be in agreement that this is not a 'major discovery in physics', and not even scientifically feasible. Still, the comparison to a starlet's panties is contrived, as the same reasoning could be applied to anything that's ever been on the news. The article needs work, but the subject itself is valid, as it has received much more coverage than most other crank theories.

109a152a8a146 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC). 

Not a major discovery in physics, agreed. The major discovery was that of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. This is a major advance in technology as previously the energies involved in LENR were very low in comparison.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources whatsoever that tell us anything useful about Rossi's 'technology', beyond his own unverifiable assertions. It cannot therefore possibly be a 'major' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This development has plenty of news coverage. The science has not been established. The evidence points in the direction that it is not a hoax. Even if it is a hoax, it needs an article to give the up-to-date status. Therefore, keep. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator WP:NOTNEWS - this isn't the place to publish original research. It's a hoax because you can't change nickel to copper by rubbing it with a bit of Crisco, no matter how many journalism students have attended your press conference. The coverage doesn't show that this scam is any more significant than the last scam. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominator is using one fallacy after the other --POVbrigand (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Who can transmute elements by dipping them in a beaker? We know the patter line is a hoax, so the only question of notability is if this hoaxer is somewhat more significant than the average peddler of free-energy scams. The coverage doesn't compare this one to others. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing in the nomination really stands up. We do cover scams and nonsense science. Anything else is a question of WP:NPOV and editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Ah, but it is presented as science fact rather than science nonsense in this spammy article. Such earthshaking claims of using chemical reactions to transmute elements need sound coverage in peer-reviewed scientific journals and science textbooks from respected publishers. Tabloids and sensationalistic TV news channels are not reliable sources for claims of breakthroughs in physics or chemistry. Plainly contradicted by chemistry textbooks. Edison (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry textbooks not relevant source, dealing purely with processes of a chemical nature and thus excluding many processes known to physics.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

respected publisher American_Chemical_Society: ISBN 978-0-841-22454-4 ; ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Media coverage is sufficient for the subject to worth a topic in Wikipedia no matter if it turns out to be a Ponzi scam, fairy tale or world-overturning energetic revolution. There is no rule Wikipedia cannot have articles on scam topics — instead, as long as a particular one becomes a topic of wide interest, it would be a miss not to have an article on it. Honeyman (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, as violating key Wikipedia policies (WP:FRINGE, WP:NOT etc). I have suggested in the past that this article be deleted, but it seems to me that this nomination is flawed. It isn't up to Wikipedia to assert that this is a scam, even when faced with such clear indications that it may well be. And nor is it our job to declare that it is 'scientifically impossible' - we would need to find a source that said that about Rossi's magic teapot 'E-Cat' itself. No, the question should be is it possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this? There are a few sources that seem to meet WP:RS criteria, most notably Ny Teknik - though reliance on a single source is always problematic, and they seem on occasion to have overstepped the line between journalism and 'scientific testing', while clearly unqualified for the latter. If one bases an article on reliable sources, all that can really be said is that Rossi keeps producing devices, and in convincing people that they produce excess heat. There is no 'science' to speak of, as Rossi refuses to divulge sufficient information to test its validity. There appear to be two types of 'customer' reported - ones who cancel their contract, and ones who may well not exist at all, as far as we have any verifiable evidence. Almost everything else is hype, speculation, and crystal-ball-gazing. It may be possible to write an article about the E-Cat one day, but for now there simply isn't enough material for anything other than a recounting of Rossi's claims, and a repetitive description of each 'demonstration' - though if we exclude the 'results' on the basis that this isn't peer-reviewed science (as would be necessary to support such extraordinary claims), all we have on that is a date, a list of attendees, and a description of whatever Rossi's plumber Rossi has constructed that week. On this basis, I am inclined to suggest that the article be deleted, as covering a subject that cannot be sourced sufficiently well to produce an encyclopaedic article. Of course, after Rossi gets his Nobel Prize, his spell behind bars, or whatever the outcome is, someone may be able to piece together enough evidence to make an article possible - which is to say, someone can provide us with a reliable source that actually tells us what is in the teapot E-Cat, and whether it is producing excess heat or excess gullibility. For now, the best article on the E-Cat would probably be the shortest: "E-Cat: see unicorn". Unless someone can convince me otherwise, by explaining how an encyclopedia can describe a device of unknown construction that may or may not do something significant, I'm inclined to argue for deletion - though not on the grounds of the proposer. Meanwhile, can I ask that those taking part in this AfD take time to look at the article, with a view to making it at least a little less full of speculation, hype, and wishful thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"how an encyclopedia can describe a device of unknown construction that may or may not do something significant,"

By saying that it's of unknown construction and unknown efficacy. If that's all we can say, then that's all we should say. Seriously - it's longer than "see unicorn", but a one-para article might well be appropriate. This is still different from deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you write such an article (in say your user space), and if this AfD closes as 'keep', propose that it replaces the existing one? That would clearly be a worthwhile exercise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it more carefully, there is far more than one para that should survive anyway. The descriptions of the public tests are adequately sourced and illustrative of the device's obvious and evident behaviour, even if they don't go into much detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Cold fusion by another name. I have no objection to Wikipedia having articles on pseudoscience topics but this one fails to identify it as such. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

Not pseudoscience. There are many papers on it in regular scientific journals.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying that cold fusion was a pseudoscience. There has been plenty of reliable experimental research done on that subject. All of the reproducible work shows that the effect does not exist (or, at least, such goes the consensus). My comment was directed the present article. However, in view of the widespread publicity that the subject has attracted, I think that a better approach to the article may that of Bhny below. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

• Merge to cold fusion. I especially like the way they say, "it's not CF, it's LENR"— which redirects to CF. The article is heavily padded with primary sources, and when the dust settles it may well mark the point at which CF moved from bad science to scam; other than that the notability of this is going to be low. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I fully endorse the concerns raised about the quality of sourcing and the painfully credulous point of view espoused by the article's dominant editors. I have noted previously on the article's talk page that the style of our article would be more appropriate to a blog – where every new press release or snippet of trivial coverage is breathlessly reported in a new section, and where every dog-and-pony 'demonstration' is treated as fact – than to an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there are enough 'true believers' who are watching the article to prevent and revert the sort of aggressive pruning that would be required to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards. We're in the awkward position of having an article that is too poor to be retained as it stands (and which can't by any practical method be fixed), on a topic that may just barely squeak through some sort of objective test of 'notability' as a social – not scientific – phenomenon (and so can't easily be deleted). Mangoe's merge suggestion has merit, as there really aren't very many good sources on this topic, and the serious-bordering-on-irreparable problems of WP:WEIGHT could be diluted if not ameliorated by putting a limited, appropriate amount of material into a suitable parent article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Basically if we merge it with Cold Fusion we heavily mix a scientific matter of study with a device, and this does not seem quite appropriate to me.
  About notability: Forbes wrote a series of articles about it (the most recent: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/ ), Wired wrote a series of articles about it (the most recent: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success ), hence the sources are very popular magazines indeed. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— 79.24.134.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. Merging into cold fusion is not a good option, because the device is already mentioned there nicely concisely. ie merging would effectively mean deleting. As TenOfAllTrades already mentioned, the device is notable as a social phenomenon, not as a scientific one. I can count myself as one of the article's dominant editors (since a few weeks), but I cannot agree to having a credulous point of view. There is no scientific proof whatsoever how the Rossi device functions. Until we have, we must leave science out of the discussion and out of the article. I have already made proposals several times how we can come to a more concise version, but couldn't get a consensus mainly due to the deletionist party. My proposal for clear disclaimers [2] was reverted by AndyTheGrump [3]. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A properly-Written article shouldn't need 'disclaimers' - but my objection to that edit was that we don't need "not been independently verified" twice in the same paragraph. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This may be a fraud, or a scam (note: personally, I think it is legitimate phenomenon, but incomplete science), but it is increasingly discussed, in increasingly mainstream media. (NyTeknik, Wired, Network World, Forbes, Italian network television (TG2)). The deletionist proposition is that the reaction can't be chemically-induced nuclear reactions, and is therefore junk science. It doesn't really matter what the actual reaction is: if it is a useful, economically viable device it is worth an article. SeanTrue (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"If". See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. And no, 'junk science' is by no means the only argument for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From wp:notcrystalball : "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This allows for this type of article. In addition your attempt to constrain things with very strict guides violates the idea that we have guidelines and the rules can be broken if done carefully. Zedshort (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Then tell us the reasons why you think guidelines should be broken in this instance: 'because they can' isn't a justification for ignoring rules etc arrived at by consensus after considerable debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You again quote rules that aren't. We have guidelines and I need not give you reasons but only need be reasonable. Your reasoning is based on "I just don't believe it." You come across a highly authoritarian and seem to think by constantly referring to the WP guidelines you can silence others. I suspect you are one of those to whom Max Planck was referring. Zedshort (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, significant media coverage that definitely merits a serious article on Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 05:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Afd is definitely unnecessary at this stage. There's plenty of WP:RS, and increasing amounts of it. Call for deletion is malicious at best.Tmccc (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Although there are certainly various problems with the article, but it clearly meets the GNG and so regardless of whether it really works or not, we should have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. After reading multiple popular press reports, I want to go to Wikipedia to see objective analysis and references. Of course, there's a high probability that it is a hoax, but I trust Wikipedia to have a great article for and against. I was especially interested in whatever's known about the science which is not well covered in popular media. I don't know where the article belongs, but Wikipedia does provide a needed service as a central objective source of information. FlintOBrien —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

There is nothing whatever known about the science to include in the article, and until Rossi subjects his teapot to proper scientific analysis, there won't be. And no, we can't write an article 'for and against' something that we know nothing about, beyond its appearances at Rossi's staged 'demonstrations'. Everything else is hype, spin, and old-fashioned bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What is known about the science is Einstein's famous law elucidating the relationship between mass and energy. What is happening within the e-cat is not violating that known law of physics. It is performing outside the realm of hot plasma fusion physics as it is very near room temperature and as a result does not produce the results that a hot plasma fusion physicist would expect. Known laws of physics are not being violated as the parameters of this system are very different. The only thing missing is an extension of the known laws and that by itself is reason enough to report on this device as it produces copious amounts of net heat and the phenomenon is easily conjured up and needs to be investigated and explained. Zedshort (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, Been present at the oct6 testing of the device, I confirm a 100% certain that the average outflowing water was about 8-10°C warmer than the inflowing water on a 600l/h basis, and this for several hours. There were indeed some errors, but from a technical point of view (and having quadruple checked the thermometers after the test in the full range of the measured temperatures: they measured equal and within a precision range of 0,1 °C), all corrections that have to be made are in favor of the device. One simple item everyone can check on the pictures from NyTeknik (1 and 7): the thermometer on the inflow side was connected to the release-ring of the hose, so it did not make contact with a metal part that made contact with the flow, so basically it was influenced by environmental temperature. (28-29°C). There is not much variation of the tap water temperature in Italy, and the water measured 23,8 degrees before the test. The electricity that went into the device(s) was not measured very precisely, but I also confirm that other simple physical test proved 100% certain that the input power did not exceeded 2500 Watts, and in self sustaining mode there was indeed no significant energy consumption for almost four hours. No other electric cables were in use. Besides that, multiple disciplines of scientists were present, and observed their items, and also confirmed a successful evidence of controllable and stable nuclear reactions that were happening inside the reactor, by measuring.... . I cannot talk about that.

The amount of kettle stone that was formed, also on the nuts and bolt that closed the inner-core of the e-cat, proves that this same device had been used for longer periods before this test and without being opened in between.

In fact the effort of those that are trying to hide or deny the device, is near a criminal act against humanity. I believe Wikipedia cannot support such behavior. With a match and a trunk of a live oak, you can scientifically prove that wood cannot burn, and by doing so, sending whole populations to die from cold. In fact, lots of people even have difficulties igniting their BBQ and therefore they use all sorts of auxiliary materials to start a fire. E-cat is about auxiliary stuff to improve the efficiency. You can only deny a phenomenon if you have done all possible and thinkable effort to prove it exists and never have found even a glimpse of a positive result. The world is very far past the point of denial of effects happening in solid state metals. So the guys that did not try to observe nor explain nor reproduce the phenomenon with enough effort, even have no reason to speak at all. I recommend them to speak open and clear about their own business in which they are the real experts. More information about their work would be valuable too for Wikipedia. Almost every musician, painter or sportsman has his own place in wikipedia. Even fictional personages from comics and movies have their pages. And now the e-cat should be hidden as fast as possible ? --Kv1970 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)— Kv1970 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment "Original research" is the term we use for this single purpose account's personal knowledge of the subject. Edison (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.88.234 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 

• • Comment by nominator This is original research and not usable on Wikipedia. Why is it that every free-energy inventor can dream up great inventions that overturn all of physics, but refuses to buy a decent set of meters? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think you know anything about the history of physics. This episode is very reminiscent of the invention of the electric motor, following Faraday's demonstration of mechanical motion derived from permanent magnets and electric currents. The actual theory of how this works by Maxwell did not appear for another 37 years after the first motor and 46 years after the demonstration of the phenomenon. And they had the advantage of not having their minds polluted by pathological skepticism. PS, I'm a physicist. Antimatter33 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the nominator that the last unsigned 'keep' nomination is based on original research and should be ignored. Whether or not the thing works is irrelevant to deciding if the article should be kept or not, unless it's verifiable. The decision should be based on notability, not personal opinion on the presence or absence of scientific merit. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - that way, when the truth about all this is revealed, and it becomes clear that an article on a world-changing event was censored away by pathological skeptic fiat, the blatant editorial bias of Wikipedia and their complete lack of historical perspective will be revealed in all their tawdry shame. Antimatter33 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Can we all just calm down a little, stop accusing each other of ignorance/bias/delusion/closed-mindedness and stick to the sources? It's just an article. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• (strong) Keep I don't even know why we're discussing this: everybody here knows that it's not our job to judge if the device is a scientific/engineering breakthrough or just a scam. All we need to consider is notability and (mainstream) media coverage. Both is clearly given. Which should be the end of the discussion, no? -- Minvogt (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I should perhaps add: the style of the article is far from perfect; I agree with previous editors that it sounds too much like promotional material or a "free energy" blog, but deletion cannot be the solution to that problem. -- Minvogt (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(strong) Delete This is the definition of free energy, which is always a scam. The proposed method would rewrite more physics than the CERN FTL discovery, and this is not being handled in any way, shape or form like that is. It's a classic "secretive black box that does X" and this article is probably mostly marketing for it put up by individuals involved in said scam. Merge this to Cold Fusion, because that's exactly what the claim is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Free meaning cheap, there is no claim of free energy with this. Why don't you try reading about it before you condemn it.Ldussan (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong in setting this equal to perpetuum mobile. There are a number of explaining theories, that do in fact not re-write physics. Please read before you judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is WORSE than perpetual motion because those at least are just supposed to produce kinetics. This is a tabletop reaction that has an energy density several times that of nuclear reactors that itself is "probably nuclear" according to Rossi, but requires no external cooling and generates no radiation. Wikipedia should not be used to promote scams to the scientifically illiterate. If the article wants to be made balanced and mostly about the COVERAGE, that's a different story. There is no "there there" as far as the science goes, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• (strong) Keep I agree with Minvogt that "it's not our job to judge if the device is a scientific/engineering breakthrough or just a scam". As notability and serious media coverage cannot be denied, there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. Croquant (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Just because it's fun to watch an adventure that will likely put Rossi in jail again. PhGustaf (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that an argument for having an article on Rossi, rather than on his magic teapot? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See his page. PhGustaf (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. It certainly seems to be 'his', given that much of it is sourced to him. Rather contrary to what has been written about him in WP:RS, I'd have thought - though at least it notes his murky past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• (strong) Keep What interest should the inventor Rossi have in a scam? Surely he is not good at providing confidence and he does not seem to be a good businessman, but that does not make it a scam. The article itself states that e-cat is work in progress, and logically proof of such a invention would be hard to provide. Wait until this topic matures and provides proof or scam become emergent.

Read WP:CRYSTALBALL - wait for the sources, then write the article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Your reasoning would be right, if that _actually_ would be scam. I am trying to find such a prove since half a year. So far there is no prove. This whole thing is also of such an importance for the future of mankind, that LENR developments should be quite well regarded in wikipedia. The number of signs there is something behind that was really adding up in the last years, even if E-Cat will finally not prove to be the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — 84.180.53.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your opinions on the validity of the E-Cat are irrelevant - we base articles on published reliable sources, and deletion discussions are based around whether such articles conform to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an entry about the heads of the Iraqi Information Ministers. This one has zero cited sources besides that one about the dissolution of that ministry. So, to a independent observer it much looks as if the source for those persons listed might have been the Information Ministry itself. Given this, I still would not opt for deletion of that entry, mind you. 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Empirical evidence for the validity of the ecat claims is abundant, while theoretical explanations conflict dramatically with the established scientific paradigm. If the article is rejected it implies that the only valid scientific knowledge must be consistent with generally accepted theories, which rules out any number of scientifically interesting areas such as the possibility of faster than light neutrinos, and at various points in history, plate tectonics, super conductivity and other areas which at the time of their discovery outstripped the then current theoretical models. 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Thomas Baccei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.192.84 (talk) — 71.161.192.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd disagree with your assertions regarding 'empirical evidence', but that is beside the point. Wikipedia is not a forum for breaking news about untested scientific claims (and Rossi is not actually making any, in any recognised peer-reviewed journal or other meaningful source). If and when the science is recognised, we can write about it. If you want speculative journalism, you can find plenty elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, E-Cat is a product, not just research. Wikipedia has entries about products that are about to be released. Which is just the case here, selling started according to AR. What is missing at this point is a number installed customers that are willing to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rossi is not a reliable source for anything but his own opinions - and the "number installed customers that are willing to report" is apparently zero - or do you have a source to the contrary? Again, I point out that this is a discussion about the article with regard to Wikipedia policy, not a general debate about the E-Cat itself. Please stay on topic, and keep your speculation to yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As many editors have already pointed out, the notion that the claims are "not recognised science" is not a justification for deletion. Andy stop pushing this ridiculous misconception of wikipedia policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where I made that assertion? I was replying to claims that 'E-Cat is a product' - for which we have no source. And I don't need lessons on Wikipedia policy from someone who thinks that unsourced speculation about Rossi's recreational activities is valid article material [4], or that we should discuss the suitability of the teapot E-Cat as a means to make tea (yes, really - see: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_5#Cup_of_tea) in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there another mode of discussion that you are capable of other than ridicule ? You use teapot all over the place. It was my intent to improve the article by giving it a little more background with the "cup of tea" phrase, and how that phrase has been used in relation with cold fusion. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "If and when the science is recognised, we can write about it." I read that as: "As long as it is not recognised science we don't need the article". --POVbrigand (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Filling articles with off-topic speculative crap does not constitute an 'improvement'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are really showcasing your civility once more --POVbrigand (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It is a noteworthy scam. The article though is terrible and should be edited down. Bhny (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep/Speedy Keep -- And why did somebody think they could get away with a simple PROD? If you read the talk page, this has been a very contentious article, so I would argue that the deletion request is being made strictly on the ground of being disruptive to the article and certainly not being cooperative. It clearly has multiple sources in terms of basic notability. That the detailed explanation of this concept may be very thin on those sources is true, but this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing which sources may be reliable or not other than to discuss basic notability and its qualifications for being included on Wikipedia. It has received coverage on CNN, Forbes, and other "mainstream" news media outlets to at least confirm notability of the concept as deserving to be discussed on Wikipedia. It may be a scam, but then again scams certainly are worthy of being written about on Wikipedia as well. This article deserves some attention by some admins as there has been situations of WP:OWN, and edit warring on a massive scale where some editors simply can't get anything contributed at all. The original rationale for deletion was simply boneheaded at least for why this article should be deleted and the rest of the article issues can certainly be dealt with elsewhere. At least use reasonable grounds for why it should be deleted other than "it is a scam". --Robert Horning (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep has plenty of coverage in magazines and web sites, so even if it is a fake it is still notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep There needs to be a neutral Wikipedia entry on this device available for people who become freshly acquainted with it through the increasing news coverage it is getting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewoudenberg (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Whether or not this is a scam (and personally, I think it's likely to be one) it's interesting and potentially important. And there are plenty of current journalistic sources including the Forbes online magazine article here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/2/ -- perhaps someone could add that? Thousands and thousands of people have read about Rossi and the E-cat. It needs to be available via Wikipedia.Maryyugo (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is on the verge of descending into a mud-slinging match between two increasingly entrenched camps. Please try to limit the discussion to the merits of the article (sources, notability of the subject, independent coverage...). Insisting on a personal opinion (e.g. that the subject is a scam/major breakthrough) is unlikely to be seen as a valid argument for deletion/retention, and is unhelpful as it will polarize the opinions further. Sources for both views are available and should both be considered if the result of this discussion is 'keep'. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The article appears to be about a claim for inventing a specific device that is claimed to produce excessive amounts of energy from partially undisclosed ingredients for demonstrably short amounts of time (hours). Although as a graduate physicist I don't believe (warning: original research) that claimed process (reacting nickel with hydrogen to produce copper) can take place exothermically, i.e. to produce heat (it in fact can take place endothermically, as copper-63 has lower binding energy than nickel-62), I know plenty of other processes that can produce heat in said quantity and volume for said amount of time (like highly unstable isotopes of certain elements), which would explain most of the weirdness observed in the experiment, as well as inventor's ban on radiation measurement equipment. Yes, i believe it is a scam. Nevertheless, it is notable enough to be mentioned as such in Wikipedia, with proper warnings about possible scientific controversies. See, for example, EmDrive. 79.179.42.190 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There has been very much independent commentary and even validation, including by a major, well-known entity in the U.S. that starts with an N (I can't disclose what I know, for confidentiality reasons). More validation is pending. I've posted a back-up copy of the page at http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Energy_Catalyzer Also, see our list of coverage (not comprehensive, but extensive), as we've chronicled it at http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Rossi_Cold_Fusion -- Sterlingda (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (who was present at the Oct. 28, 2011 test here in Bologna)

Wikipedia articles are based on material from published reliable sources, not on unverifiable claims from clearly-partisan blog writers, particularly ones who give the impression of being here to spam links to a website that appears to make money from advertising. If you were at the Oct 28th test, publish the details in a valid source, and we can consider its relevence. As for 'N', we aren't interested in guessing games, and until we see details, are entirely entitled to treat this as something starting with 'B' and 'S'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sterlingda is reposting propaganda verbatim from Rossi's blog "journal." He's probably financially interested in promoting it and so should be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There has been media exposure in known journals and peripheral involvement by reputable scientists. Commercial sale reality or lack of it will become evident within months. Then if necessary the article can be cut or altered to function as an historic record. There are known attendences at Rossi's demonstrations by political, industrial and academic represenatives (for example at the Defkalion media launch and the October 6 demonstration) to make it a matter of minor historical interest should it be a fake. Star A Star (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep Primary sources and original research should be eliminated from the article before a even debating decision to delete. Jim Bowery (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Move This is about a current event that is getting some mainstream press. If it's borne out to be a fake then it can be pushed as a footnote into LENR/Cold Fusion articles. While it's still up in the air I think there's plenty of notability about the story. It should be moved to a '2011 Rossi Cold Fusion claims' current event page. Jherico (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Bad faith nom. Ni-H cold fusion is not, pace the nominator, a field with "no science behind it" - it was extensively written up in the 1990s. The tests of the device have gained enough press coverage to meet WP:N and the sources meet RS. Might want to consider merging Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) into Energy Catalyzer though. Also, the following reasoning is ridiculous:

If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago.

Er, who cooks monatomic hydrogen in a frying pan? Miracle Pen (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly good faith nomination. Wikipedia is not the venue to promote scams. Crisco and butter have lots of hydrogen in them. You cannot transmute elements by chemical means. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Promoting scams" is not a criterion in WP:N, and so the scam-ness or not of the Catalyzer is not a rationale for deletion, as others have already pointed out above. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to choose which of the laws of physics you can ignore. If a hydrogen atom can migrate through the tens of millions of electron-volts of potential required to penetrate a nickel nucleus, it can darn well scrape up a couple of extra electron-volts to break a comparatively feeble chemical bond in a molecule of bacon fat. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to overcoming Coulomb repulsion? Miracle Pen (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If it were this easy to stick together nuclei, we would have had 60 years worth of unemployed physics grad students. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the theories of nickel-hydrogen LENR (apparently in Piantelli's 2008 patent filing) is that hydride ions are substituting for electrons, and the process plays out more or less like muon-catalyzed fusion. Hydride ions, like muons, are negatively charged, and so there's no Coulomb repulsion to speak of. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The e-cat has recently got a lot of attention in the media because of all the progress that is being made by the inventor. It has gotten to the point where unless Rossi is flat out lying, which seems highly unlikely, then the Energy Catalyzer, based off the information we have, most likely works. The fact that somebody has marked this article for deletion now, seems based more on the information coming out now that indicates the E-cats success rather then it's failure. It seems more likely that the nominator marked this page for deletion because they have a personal vendetta against the inventor and would like to see him fail, for whatever reason. This call for deletion seems to have nothing to do with it being a scam, as there is no proof of that yet. Even if the E-cat is a scam, then it is one of the most elaborate scams in history, that alone justifies it's Wikipedia page.

• Strong Keep There's no reason for deletion. Mainstream media reported on this. Most of the sources in the article are reliable. And the article doesn't say that it "works". The article says it exists, and it is "claimed to work". Siaraman (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment by nominator The device is claimed to make nuclear transmutation by chemical means, something humanity's top brains have been working on since the alchemists and which we know to be impossible. The promoters are apparently taking money for a device that can't possibly work. Lots of publicity, lots of veiled hints of secret deals, no peer-reviewed proofs, lots of demonstrations for the credulous and the unschooled, - all we need is allegations of cover ups by Big Oil and we'll have the complete suite of crackpottery. HOw is this scam notable compared to any other free-energy scam? Has it taken in a lot more money yet? Unless it's a notable scam in its own right, it can be easily appended as a footnote to some other cold-fusion article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Whether or not the theory makes any sense is irrelevant to this discussion. They could claim that it's tiny badgers that force hydrogen and nickel together for all I care. The point here is notability, not feasibility. Like it or not, 'Lots of publicity, lots of veiled hints of secret deals, no peer-reviewed proofs, lots of demonstrations for the credulous and the unschooled' have been enough to generate that notability. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming it is a scam, it's a noteworthy scam because the inventor has claimed to have sold a one megawatt generator to a U.S. customer affiliated with NATO; The day this was allegedly sold, last Friday, Rossi put together a very elaborate demonstration of the plant that had scientists and engineers in attendance along with a reporter from the AP (Who is yet to release their report). If this is a scam, then it is a very expensive scam that requires that not only the customer to be fake (I think it's the NAVY), but also that the entire demonstration on Friday was staged in some very elaborate way. The information of how this was staged is important in and of itself, assuming it's scam. However, assuming it's scam at this point is based on flimsy logic at best. The basis for this being a scam is essentially based on Rossi's creditability, and conspiracy theories that the customer doesn't really exist. I call into question way we should pay attention to to the nominator on the issue of Rossi's credibility as the Nominator accuse the man of being a scam artist with no verifiable proof. How did Rossi stage the event on Friday? You give no information or site any sources to back up your conspiracy theory, because that's what it is, that Rossi staged the event on Friday. Instead you just make the assumption it is a scam, based on the assumptions of the scientific consensus. This can be equated to the same assumptions made by those that assumed the Earth was flat, because common knowledge tells you that you would fall off the earth if it was round; I would define appealing to mass consensus as an illogical fallacy. Your not looking at the issue at hand, which, assuming it's a scam, is: how did Rossi fake it? To which you have provided nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.69.52 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is about whether the E-Cat article is suitable for wikipedia according to our policies and norms, not on whether individuals think the E-Cat is 'a scam', and note in particular that making negative comments about other contributors is unlikely to be effective. Finally, do you have a reliable source for the customer being affiliated with NATO? If so, it should go in the article. As far as I'm aware, no such source is available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the nominator made it quit clear that their basis for deletion is about the E-cat being a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.69.52 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Voting irregularities! There appears to be a high number of one edit and infrequently used accounts participating in the vote. Is this grounds for a sock puppet check? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Voting is evil. We work by consensus, though I don't envy the admin who closes this one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And single purpose account creation and canvassing can skew the concensus. The vote is mentioned on fringe websites, this may be the cause [5] [6] of this. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie,

this is not a referendum, and the decision must be taken on the basis of consensus.

About the pages you cited: there is no mention about vote, there is mention about the fact that the E-Cat page on Wikipedia has been flagged. There is a huge diffence between the two things.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that mentioning deletions in progress and providing links is a canvassing technique. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can put forward to us reliable sources to support your claim. --79.6.8.194 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Canvassing, particularly Campaigning: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no notification of discussion. As the matter of fact, this page is not mentioned.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is basically no difference between 'mentioning the vote' and 'mentioning the fact'. You know that there isn't. Now can we forget about whether or not the blasted thing works and decide if it is notable or not? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The media hubbub around the E-Cat might possibly pass WP:NOTABILITY standards (though it would need a source that commented on the hubbub, rather than merely adding to it - otherwise we are engaging in original research by asserting its significance), but it seems to me that there is simply insufficient information from independent reliable sources to justify an encyclopaedic article. If the E-Cat turns out to be significant (or a significant scam) and material is available, it may well be that an article can be justified in future - but for now, all we have is questionable 'news' managed by Rossi, hype, and speculation - so, per WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL etc, the time for such an article is not now. Not every 'notable' thing is fit for an encyclopaedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Andy for being one of the few people here who are at least willing to discuss this, even if you disagree with me. I believe the subject is notable because it did have a large amount of independent coverage in well-respected media, which I think is sufficient to warrant an article. In my view, a source commenting on the hubbub isn't necessary, as the article is entitled 'Energy catalyzer', rather than 'Energy catalyzer controversy'. I don't think having an article asserts significance as long as it sticks to reliable sources. I believe a neutral descriptive article is possible without having to wait how this pans out (cf. GFAJ-1). Having said that, I'm tending more and more towards a delete myself now, simply because I can't see how this article will ever be neutral or well-written. Several people have attempted to improve the article over the last few days by removing irrelevant detail and making the style less 'bloggy', only to be immediately reverted with a cry of 'this is important information!'. The article is awfully written, and it will be impossible to improve it without being attacked by either the pro or contra camps. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is essentially the point I was trying to make - that it just isn't possible to write an encyclopaedic article on the E-Cat with so little real information, and a huge amount of questionable speculation instead. Essentially, almost all the 'keep' arguments seem to come down to assertions of notability based on the fact that it has been written about, rather than the meaningful content of what is written. Others are suggesting that it will be notable in the future, one way or another. This may be true, but per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we need to assess the article on what is immediately available, not what we think will be available later. I suspect the topic is so divisive largely because there is little concrete evidence to go on. It seems to be more about faith than science, and about expectations than events. Some things are just not amenable to the Wikipedia process, and the E-Cat seems to be a prime example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source that commented on the hubbub: [7]. "If you’ve missed the recent brouhaha over the E-Cat (which stands for Energy Catalyzer), you’re missing out on a three ring circus over a technology that will either change everything or change nothing because what is promised is, in theory, power too cheap to be worth metering." Andy, true overlord of this article, desire anything else ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that in principle there is enough verifiable information in reliable media to write a worthwile article, but unfortunately it seems almost certain that it will be completely swamped by nebulous assertion taken from someone's private blog (a la '...an agency with an N... but I can't say which!') and 'disclaimers' by scientific POV warriors. I don't see a problem with the amount or reliability of the available information (e.g. POVbrigand's example in Forbes), but unfortunately there is also a lot of unverifiable and irrelevant crud out there that will end up in the article and will be impossible to get rid of. I really don't know how that can be dealt with effectively, or if having no article is better than having this article (i.e. in its current form). POVbrigand, what are your thoughts on this? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not share your worries that this article will accumulate unverifiable crud. Most of the pro-editors, I believe, don't want the article to end up like a fan page. They are just concerned about presenting to the WP-reader a balanced story about the e-cat, what it is and what it isn't. Now that the demonstration "phase" is apparently over, we can concentrate on improving the article by cutting out the unnecessary parts. The next big content addition will be when the promised scientific evaluation at the uni Bologna or uni Uppsala will present a scientific assessment. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is already full of largely irrelevant trivia and an excessive amount of direct quotations. As far as I can see, all attempts to address this were immediately reverted. A balanced article of appropriate length would be nice, but how can this realistically be achieved? I suppose simply waiting for the hype to die down is an option, but it isn't particularly satisfying. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How to achieve this ? Simple, wait for the current edit frenzy to cool down. The main editors agreeing to abstain for a week or so. The pro-camp is just adding quotations as a reaction to the deny-camp dismissing it a priori. I bet that 4 editors from both sides (ie 8 editors in total) could trim/tune this article within a week. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One can but hope... Putting a temporary edit block on the article might allow things to cool. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what benefit would come to Wikipedia if this article was deleted. There are so many people interested in this topic at the moment that it is bound to be repeatedly re-created even if it was deleted, and then salting the article title doesn't seem to be a much better solution either. Yes, this article is going through a nearly continuous edit war, but other articles on Wikipedia also have that same "problem". I think that only goes to demonstrate the notability of the article as a lack of notability usually is about topics which will lack editors. Suggesting that edit wars are happening and that there is a whole community of editors willing to work on this, with two (or more) philosophical camps about what should be in the article strongly suggests that an AfD was the wrong way to tone down the rhetoric. If anything, this AfD has just ramped up the intensity where it has emboldened the proponents as those who would be critical are now seen as "the enemy", not worthy of compromise because the "opposing camp" sees deletion as the ultimate goal of any compromise effort. This is the reason I am suggesting this discussion simply be closed as the longer this deletion discussion languishes the more fire that is going to be poured into the discussion.

If you were talking about deleting this article because nobody would edit the article after it is written, there are many such articles on Wikipedia. Those lack notability. Regardless of the actual "vote count", there certainly is plenty of interest in this topic. I have also not seen a compelling rational for why the article must be deleted, and article quality is never legitimate grounds for deletion. Article quality can be improved by enforcing standards (including the style guide if necessary) and legitimate consensus on what should be in the article.... but that should happen on the talk page of the article and not in the AfD. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I'm just not sure how the standards could be enforced, or how a consensus can be reached, even after discussion on the talk page. I agree though that deletion isn't an ideal solution. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Consensus, which covers the topic more than adequately. Consensus means you are calm, willing to be open to other viewpoints, and on occasion willing to compromise when necessary. It also implies you don't have all of the answers, and that you may on occasion be wrong. That is how standards are enforced, sometimes swinging the ban hammer when people aren't willing to engage in the process (as a measure of last resort). It also implies you are willing to let others edit the page and not revert almost everything that is contrary to your POV. As to if that is possible on this article, I would think it could be. Barack Obama and George W. Bush have been able to be written (even quality articles at that) in spite of massive POV camps that have weighed in on both articles from practically the first day those articles were created. It can be done here too. I also have faith that Wikipedia articles tend to improve over time, especially as more editors become interested in a topic. All of the moaning and screaming on the talk page is a sign that there are many who want a quality article, and as such I generally assume good faith on the part of the participants. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Duh! Time Cube gets an article, but not the Energy Catalyzer? "If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago." Red herring much? If I had a nickel's-worth for every argument that was this flawed, I would have all the money in the world.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Time Cube article doesn't present it as anything other than a crackpot website. In contrast, given the present state of our article, the less knowledgeable reader might assume that he/she will be pulling the boiler out of the basement in a year or two, to fit a shiny new E-Cat. Anyway, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Alanf777 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Please explain your policy based reasons why you think the article should be kept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I put that in as a place-holder, to counter the "no contributors have posted here" meme.

• Reliable Sources : There are sufficient reliable sources who have reported first hand (NyTeknik, focus etc) to be certain that the eCat exists.

• For the rest -- I rely on an "emergent science" argument. The theory is unknown, but all that is required is to demonstrate excess heat. Although none of the tests has proved conclusively that it DOES produce excess heat, neither have they proved that it does NOT (see the Non-RS vortex list for the most extensive joint analysis on the subject. These are probably the MOST peer-reviewed tests ever. Ignoring the experimental numbers, a qualitative review indicates something is going on.) Even Krivit argues that Nickel-Hydrogen is real, but Rossi is faking it. Circumstantially, the ongoing involvement of the University of Bologna team indicates they are convinced.
• Notability : Any of three modes are notable a) The eCat is real b) Rossi is one of the greatest hypnotists (although only Krivit has the kryptonite) c) It's going to be the biggest scientific scam ever ( eg the Defkalion $67M per factory offer). Quoting from a vortex contributor : follow the money. If Rossi did indeed get $2m (est)for the 1MW system, he says he will pay UofB the contract money (after he cancelled the Defkalion contract he reportedly sold his house in order to continue, and was unable to pay UofB). The activation of the contract will show up in the UofB system.

Next 1MW is reportedly to be delivered in 3 months, with a less-secretive customer. May as well leave the article up. Alanf777 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such convincing evidence for why this article is so problematic - your arguments consist entirely of WP:OR and outright speculation, and are consequently of no relevance to this discussion, or to any worthwhile article on the E-Cat. Now, can you come up with policy based reasons why the article should be kept? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

a) See note by Zedshort a few posts down "so personal experience and perspective are of some value" b) I summarized three reasons why I think it conforms to wiki policy -- and no, I don't intend to copy lines and lines of wikiwonk c) Ah, heck -- delete it then. And the new ones that will pop up daily when people notice there's no ecat article. Alanf777 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep The attempt to delete smacks too much of the attempt at the defacto censorship that the cold fusion/LENR field has suffered for the past twenty-two years. This is one device that stands out among all the rest for its substantial amount of net heat out and its high COP (coefficient of performance). The claims by Rossi are that it produces heat but none of the expected emissions that hot fusion would be expected to produce and it appears to work that way. He is not claiming it works by chemical means and suggests some other not fully explained pathway causes the transmutation of elements and heat output. The fact that he does not deliver a complete, tested and pier reviewed and vetted paper that completely explains its operation does not negate the fact that it does produce substantial amounts of heat reliably makes the e-cat noteworthy of everybody and even a few articles in the popular media. In the past, it was not unusual for a new invention to be brought forth and sold on the market before the theories of physics caught up enough to fully explain the device’s operation. It is unusual today for that to happen but keep in mind that the last page of physics has not been written (and never will) and the next page, I suspect, will be about LENR. For what it is worth, I am a mechanical engineer, I know how to perform an energy balance on such a system, I have seen the data posted by Ny-Tecknic and find it produces substantial heat. Although the experiment could have been slightly improved there is no change that could have been made that would have negated the amount of heat produced and so changed the result and my conclusion that it works. It works and not by way of any chemical means.

The repeated labeling this as a “scam” or declaring that it is based on “pathological” science is not sufficient to justify it’s deletion. Surely there have been many scams in the past and will be in the future but for me this case does not pass the duck test. All the people involved seem to be behaving totally unlike scammers and the deluded can’t stand the light of day for too long. Zedshort (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Since none of what you say is based on reliable sources, your opinion on the validity of the E-Cat is irrelevant. Do you have anything to say regarding the article, and its relation to Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion of the article and so the constraints here are much looser than in the article and so personal experience and perspective are of some value. Your constant harping on what you think are hard and fast rules suggests you do not understand that there are no rules but only guidelines and the first rule is to break the rules. Zedshort (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Although mainstream peer-reviewed publications are hard to find, no surprise after the Fleischmann-Pons demise, the movie put on Youtube by Dr. Brian Josephson in which he discusses with his coleague Judith Driscoll the interest of this invention is well worth watching. They are both professors of physics, and materials science, respectively at Cambridge University. In fact Brian Josephson won the Nobel Prize for phyiscs in 1973, so if that doesn't account for scientific stature i don't know what you would be looking for. Brian Josephson video217.149.200.230 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Professor Josephson has had no opportunity to examine the E-Cat himself, and nor has he been given enough details of its inner workings, as far as I'm aware, to make any definitive statements on its validity. (though if this is incorrect, I'm sure he will let us know). As a known supporter of 'cold fusion' amongst other radical ideas, he is entirely entitled to express his opinion - but scientific validity isn't determined by prizes awarded (and if it were, I suspect that Prof. Josephson would quite likely be outnumbered by other laureates in regard to the validity of the E-Cat). It simply isn't possible to justify an article by 'endorsement' alone, no matter how qualified the endorsee is - and I note that Prof Josephson has not attempted to 'pull rank' in his comments here. It would seem rather questionable to attempt to do this for him. He apparently thinks the E-Cat may work, and he is entitled to express that opinion - as an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No offence but I have been following this issue since February and read the article and Talk on it over time. It seems to me that AndyTheGrump and Wtshymanski have been pushing this deletion line for some time when clearly the better thing is to wait for a time. They keep repeating that it is simply a scam and impossible and should be deleted. They seem keen to act straight away, what is the sense of urgency? Unless something happens, isn't it just going to sit largely as it is? Please note I do not think it is appropriate to say it is a fake or not. That is not up to us. I understand both points of view and am waiting for a while longer for events (this situation is highly unusual in my opinion, even for a scam, even for an experimental breakthrough). However, reputable scientists have been involved in this project and it has been widely reported. It has been discussed in scientific circles, according to my scientist/executive friend in automation and robotics. In addition, it has clearly and patently been widely reported in journals as an event. The site does not sponsor Rossi. Whatever its formal rules, Wikipedia functions as a non-commercial information base for the public including on public events. I think those who are in favour of deletion should rather argue for shortening the article. I don't understand why persons are referring to such an editing process as impossible or extremely difficult. I have done professional editing for 12 years in total and can't see any problem. Deleted details can be found by interested viewers on the blog sites if they are interested. If new information supports Rossi's claims the article can be re-expanded. That's the beauty of the Internet, it's flexible. Star A Star (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star A Star (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Star A Star (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please confine your comments to the issue here, which is whether the article is compatible with Wikipedia policy (for which you should read [[WP:NOTCRYSTALLBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:OR etc), rather than misrepresenting the opinions of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FromWP:NOTNEWSPAPER : "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." This is one such article. This article touches on many subjects in WP and is of great importance as it could in the very near future result not just in the inclusion of the event of this invention but radically affect their future. A short list of what will be affected is energy, economics, food production, poverty, geo-politics, pollution...etc. I am sure that if you re-read the "rules" you are so fond of quoting you will in all cases find room for such an article unless you continue to read them in your very biased manner. And once again they are guidelines. Zedshort (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think that there are fundamental obstacles to shortening and improving the article in terms of the available data and sources. In practice however, every attempt to do this has been very rapidly reverted. This isn’t an editorial problem, but one of opposing views and procedure. However, as Robert pointed out, good articles on other contentious subjects (George W. Bush, Obama) exist, so mechanisms to deal with this are available. These need to be implemented. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep (Strong) It really does not matter whether this Energy Catalyzer or Low Energy Nuclear Fusion are true or a hoax/wishful thinking. The terms E-CAT and LENR are all over the Internet, and therefore people like me need a place to look them up. They seem to be a fixture of the modern world, and that alone makes this page needed. -- Wikipedia has articles about other "untrue" things like Alchemy, and about other trademarked things like the iPod, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.37.71 (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Rossi is using the web on unfair terms to propagandized his alleged invention but he refuses till now to submit it to any form of serious, indipendent and scientifically correct test . Moreover, so far he has not fulfilled any of his numerous announcements. If the invention of a new form of energy is a fake, deleting articles about the so called Energy Catalyzer it will contribute to avoid potential scams. To the contrary, if the invention is real and works, deletion will stimulate Rossi to provide suitable proofs for is extraordinary claims. Chiostri (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (moved from the talk page by SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC) )

Delete. Even LENR researchers keep saying that Rossi continues to avoid simple changes in the testing procedures that could easily validate his claim. Yet Rossi refuses time after time. Still after all this time Rossi refuses to allow notable academic scientists who specialize in Nuclear physics & energy measurements to sign a NDA and have it verified. Rossi won't even give out the name of this so-called American company that's going to buy the eCat. In my firm opinion, the eCat is all a big fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.65.26 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources reported in the article seem to be fully reliable. Notable coverage from media.--Insilvis (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Andrea Rossi — cull dramatically. It's really sad that this scam is being promoted on Wikipedia and throughout the credulous cold fusion community, but it's not the first time that this has happened. The problem here is that the device is being promoted and the encyclopedic character of this topic is essentially completely tied in to the inventor who has a track record that should make anyone pause. The fact is that the sources used for this article are mostly promotional puff-pieces that do not serve to establish independent notability required of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources and the few citations that do fulfill that requirement are so off-handed and critical of the claims as to make one think that the subject doesn't deserve an article separate from that of its inventor. Compare, CSETI and Steven M. Greer for a similar fringe-theory type of example. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as the number of newspaper articles clearly shows the subject is notable enough for an article (see WP:SIGCOV). If and how it works is really of no relevance. // Liftarn (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty poor rationale for keeping a devoted article, if I do say so myself. The newspaper articles show that various breathless newspaper reporters have written about the publicity stunt, but WP:NOT#NEWS seems to be of relevance here. The provenance of this article is engineering, science, and psedusocience — not newspaper reporting. The article on Rossi himself can easily suffice as a holding pen for this idea and whatever future schemes he next promotes. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually according to WP:SIGCOV it is a very good reason. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." // Liftarn (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Andrea Rossi is a pretty famous huckster with significant coverage abounding about his various schemes. Having an article about him seems reasonable. But you have just committed the cardinal sin of confusing WP:RECENTISM with WP:SIGCOV. It's okay, it's easy to be blindsided by the media and the exciting abilities to search on the internet. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The article is well sourced and needed by Wikipedia. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My dear !voter, Wikipedia no more "needs" this article than it "needs" a treatise on any other half-cocked idea. The real question is whether this particular bit of baloney is encyclopedic enough to deserve an article. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is clearly notable, as it is discussed extensively in science news circles. Whether it works or not or whether it is entirely a fringe topic is inconsequential to the notability of the subject from reliable sources discussing it. This AfD is pointless. Silverseren^C 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you let us know where we can find these 'extensive discussions in science news circles'? If they are out there, they ought to be looked at as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you click News, Books, and Scholar at the top, you can find them, such as this, this, this, ect. Though the bulk of the sources will obviously be in Italian. Silverseren^C 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So your 'science news circles' consist of an article in the International Business Times (see WP:RSN comments on that source [8]) written by a 'corporate and transaction attorney', an article from the Tehran Times, and a pdf which cites Wikipedia as a source and says that " the aim of my paper is not a discussion on E-Cat"? Need I say more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair points, but the coverage by Forbes, Wired and Ny Teknik is easily enough to demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was giving examples, but here, a series of articles on it, published in Network World and Forbes. And, getting into Italian sources, you have this. Oh, wait, found some more English ones, like OilPrice, Business Recorder. And back to Italian, il Democratico, L'Essenziale, il Tam Tam, and such. Silverseren^C 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Forget not The Voice of Russia, Focus, Science Reporter, La Stampa, Il Sole 24 Ore, La Repubblica, Il Tempo, Il Resto del Carlino, etc...

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you give actual links to those sources? That would be more helpful than just links to their Wikipedia articles. Silverseren^C 17:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Coverage.

The Italian newspapers Il Sole 24 Ore ( Bologna Si Candida Per Il Brevetto In Giappone ancora un mese di lavoro – Sono ricerche molto complesse e costose), Il Tempo ( Il Tempo – Spettacoli – L'energia gratis parla italiano ), La Stampa ( [9] [10] ), Il Fatto Quotidiano ( [11] ), Il Resto del Carlino ( [12] ) and La Repubblica ( [13] ), various national Italian radio stations and news magazines ( Oggi, "Fusione Fredda. Ecco la macchina dell'energia pulita" p. 1, 2, 3 , Panorama, "Parla lo scienziato che ha inventato la fusione nucleare a freddo" "Fusione nucleare a freddo: i dubbi del fisico Antonio Zoccoli" ), have reported on the Energy Catalyzer.

The monthly popular science magazines Focus ( [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) in Italy and Science Reporter ( Science Reporter, July 2011. Author: Mahadeva Srinivasan. Feature article: Cold fusion poised to become an industrial reality ) in India have also covered.

It was the topic of a series of articles in the Swedish Ny Teknik ( Ny Teknik Articles on Cold Fusion ) and an article in German Telepolis ( Kalte Fusion in der Black Box? ).

In Greece, coverage appeared in the newspaper Makedonia ( http://defkalion-energy.com/files/2011_06_29_MAKEDONIA_PP22.pdf ), in the financial newspaper Express ( Επένδυση 200 εκατ. στην Ξάνθη για «πράσινη» ενέργεια ) and on the State-owned New Hellenic Television ( ‪energy catalyzer – Defkalion Green Technologies on NET tv HD‬‏ ).

In the United States it was also reported in EE Times ( [19] ), presented in the Fox News Channel ( Scientists Claim (Dubious) Cold Fusion Breakthrough ), Discovery News ( Cold Fusion Claims Resurface ), the Washington Times ( Nuclear future beyond Japan. Purported cold fusion advance aimed at energy woes ) and in the show Coast to Coast AM ( Rossi Cold Fusion Device ).

Coverage about the Energy Catalyzer was aired also by the Voice of Russia ( Cold fusion: reality or utopia?: Voice of Russia ).

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The list above is not complete, of course. You must add at least Forbes and Wired.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox : Cold Fusion Experiment: Major Success or Complex Hoax? http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

We may be seeing a media breakout from "ignore" to "real or hoax" Alanf777 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And just how many of those are "extensive discussions in science news circles", as opposed to recycled page fillers? How many of them discuss the 'science' in any detail (difficult, since Rossi won't tell us what it is)? No, there has been shallow but fairly widespread reporting in sections of the media - all of which repeats the same 'information', sourced to Rossi, or recycled from Ny Teknik and one or two less-credible sources. In any case, as I have already pointed out, notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for an article topic, and [[WP:NOT] seems to apply to much of this - see WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTPROMOTION etc. And of course see WP:FRINGE. Attempts to present the E-Cat as 'science' are fundamentally at odds with this, and there simply isn't enough other verifiable material of relevance to an encyclopaedic article to justify it. The story comes down to a man with a murky past making implausible claims about having made a fundamental scientific breakthrough using little more than domestic plumbing (and unnamed 'substances'),backed up solely by stage-managed 'demonstrations' that cannot possibly be seen as evidence for anything beyond the credulity of some of the participants - though that seems sometimes to evaporate later, with a little sober reflection on what exactly was witnessed. This might be good entertainment, and no doubt makes the 'believers' happy, but do we really have to describe this circus act in Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

First, where is WP:N does it mention "notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for an article"? I can't find it and have never come across this before. Second, if sources have covered something, then we should aim to provide a encyclopedic summary of these sources. The fact that they may not be true, or that they don't explain everything, is not a reason to completely ignore the topic. Whether we know if / how it works does not matter regarding inclusion of the topic. Thankfully, there are now plenty of sources which can be used to say that Rossi has not allowed any independent verification of the ecat and so our article can reflect this and be sceptical too. SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not" (my emphasis). As for the sources, what exactly are we going to use them for? The 'science' is unverifiable, and the 'demonstrations' are a stage-show. If all we cite articles for is for Rossi refusing to allow the device to be properly verified, it isn't going to be much of an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that clause, however, I don't think that any of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTPROMOTION or WP:FRINGE can apply : NOT#NEWSPAPER - this article is not a first hand account or who's who and has enduring notability. CRYSTALBALL - the article isn't predicting anything - we're not saying that the ecat is going to power the world in 5 years time. NOTPROMOTION - I fire my cannon at spam regularly, but this article doesn't come close. Even if it did, if something is notable, it shouldn't be deleted unless it meets WP:CSD#G11. FRINGE isn't part on WP#NOT and therefore does not apply to whether we should have an article, but rather what the article should consist of. SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Since it is getting very heated in this discussion about what does and does not qualify for deletion from Wikipedia, and even the original nominator doesn't seem to get it as evidenced by his recent edit on the Energy Catalyzer talk page, I'm going to go through each rationale for deletion on WP:Deletion Policy and point out why this particular article doesn't qualify:

• Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

This page isn't gibberish or random junk or patent nonsense. If you want to work on the new page patrol for a day or so (you can do that as an ordinary editor), you will quickly discover just what is patent nonsense.

• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

While this page certainly has some rather "spammy" sections, the article isn't strictly an advertisement of the product and certainly has people at least attempting to write a legitimate article within the philosophy of WP:NPOV

• Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

Unless somebody can point out where another article which should host this content, I don't see this as an inappropriate content fork. It certainly has not been a rational for deletion other than with with original nomination, and even that wasn't a well formed objected.

• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

This issue is perhaps the only significant issue under discussion, but the plethora of sources available seem to contradict the fact that sources can't be found.

• Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I've argued that some of the details may be lacking, and that certainly self-published sources do seem to dominate some of the technical issues of the topic, but there are reliable sources about some of the history of the topic and the chief issues like who the inventor(s) of this item may be and how it is being received in the scientific community certainly aren't in doubt, and can be backed up by reliable sources, along with at least what is being claimed that the object of which is the topic of this article is accomplishing.

• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

Notability certainly has been achieved. There are several major article which are devoted to just this one topic and at least attempt to explain the concept in some depth covering multiple paragraphs. This includes several clear 3rd party publications, although I'll admit most of them tend to be news journals and not a more sought after scientific journals giving critical analysis of the topic. Typically in a deletion discussion the threshold is about 2-3 independent articles by different authors that aren't blogs or other more easily dismissed sources. I see that threshold met with plenty of room to spare.

• Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Not even applicable other than in regards to Andrea Rossi, which is a separate article anyway.

• Redundant or otherwise useless templates

Not applicable.

• Categories representing overcategorization

Not applicable

• Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy

Not applicable.

• Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

So far not raised as an issue, and I don't see this even being an issue.

• Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

This might be debated, as to if "psuedo science" or "free energy" is a legitimate topic on an encyclopedia, but this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. There certainly has been a good faith effort to write an encyclopedia article, even if it may have some clear problems in terms of its structure and content.

Through it all, I fail to see even one criteria above that even remotely qualifies this article for deletion. Please, if you have a reason for why this article must go, give the reason. I want to see it. If this article was lacking 3rd party sources, I would recommend it be move to the article incubator, but this article doesn't even belong there. Other discussion such as if this concept is a scam or something "real" simply don't belong on this page at all. Indeed, I think the original nomination itself was flawed as the rationale for deletion didn't even really cover a single one of these points as a possible reason for its deletion. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See "content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This might be suitable for a three-ring circus, but where is the material for encyclopedic article? Rossi refuses to provide it (to anyone, and he has been asked often enough), and instead he continues with his endless run of 'demonstrations', claims of 'customers' that seem always to evaporate when money is about to change hands, and yet more hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you claim this whole thing has become a three-ring circus and that Rossi is a joke which needs to be dismissed as a crackpot, that doesn't explain why this isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. You also completely miss what kind of "non encyclopedic content" that typically comes up needing this kind of claim in deletion discussions. If you wrote an original poem, spread around a "how-to" build one of these reactors, or wrote something that certainly wasn't even attempting to write an encyclopedia article of any kind, you might have a point. The scope of what is being attempted here is to write an encyclopedic article about the "Energy Catalyzer", or am I missing something here that you see but I don't? It starts with a lead paragraph, goes into details about what the whole thing is about, covers some of the history of the device, and adds details like you would generally find in other kinds of encyclopedias. There may be some specific sections you can (and you have) legitimately objected to, but I don't see that as a reason for deletion. This isn't something which needs to be moved to a Wikimedia sister project or to Wikia. Wikipedia has articles which cover fringe theories and even flat out hoaxes, although your insistence upon reliable sources is commendable. Those can be found and have been cited elsewhere in this discussion. If you think this topic in and of itself is inappropriate to be written about, please explain your reasoning by discussing why this particular topic is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. If this was an object in World of Warcraft instead of real life we were talking about, and you could only find a couple blogs talking about this topic, you might have a point. Please try with a better argument. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and banhammer a bunch of SPAs I have reviewed the sourcing. Aside from Ny Teknik, which appears to be a mouthpiece for the "inventors," and "New Energy Times," a pseudo-blog published by a frequently blocked/banned/whatever wikipedian, and a bunch of other blogs, SEO aggregates and credulous sources that repeat the blogs, there's also one reliable source - a blog by a Forbes contributor. There's a lot of text, and a lot of sources, due to the pressure by actual paid advocates who are engaging in what appears to be challenged as fraud by many. This is an entity attempting to sell units to the general public - and we're basically complicit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• coment. No, you have not done it carefully:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/italian-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough/#ixzz1HFDdqNuC

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/28/cold-fusion

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/My%20Science%20Reporter%20Article%20on%20Rossi%20Reactor%20%28July%202011%29.pdf

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/e-cat-il-test-del-6-ottobre-le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/i-preparativi_19714201_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/l-accensione_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/autosostentamento-3-ore-o-4_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/che-cosa-c-e-dentro-all-e-cat_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

• Are these blogs?

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest you'd like to disclose (I can do it for you, if you'd like)? Most of those "sources," are not used to "source" anything - mostly they are transcriptions of blogs, or blogs themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I analyse the sources above mentioned:

1) Fox News: is it a blog?

2) Wired: is it a blog?

3) Washington Times: is it a blog?

4) Science Reporter: is it a blog?

5) Focus: is it a blog?

And, apart from those sources near above, nearly all the most important Italian newspapers have covered the E-Cat: are they blogs too?

All these sources are carefully reported in the talk page of the Energy Catalyzer. Sometimes are used in the article, sometimes are not: because of redundancy, you cannot put all the sources in the article, but they are all reported in talk page.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I will not discuss the prominence and reliability of sources with someone who has a massive conflict of interest unless they are willing to disclose that conflict of interest. The "sources" you quote above are not used to "source" anything in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you carefully check the history of the page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&action=history ) you will be able to find all the above mentioned sources. Unfortunately, not all the sources are kept: editors can add or remove what they want.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Energy Catalyzer were found to be worth One Trillion dollars, exactly how much of that would you be entitled to? Use round numbers. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well discuss it with me. Do you think Wired is a blog or biased source? Do you think Fox News is a blog?

As it's ridiculous to claim that Ny Teknik is a COI source overall, what's your evidence that they have been too closely linked over this one story in particular? Are you claiming perhaps that one journalist is over-focussed and less than impartial for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik participated in the events which makes them a non-independent and primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to be nasty; there's too much of that here already, mostly due to the nominator's comments. Isn't this supposed to be a civil discussion?62.30.137.128 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing nasty about informing people who have a large, direct, financial interest (anything you'd like to disclose?) that they have a large, direct, financial interest. There's nothing nasty about noting that the sources in question are not actually used to source anything. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Then i'm directly asking you, what's wrong with the sources given? They are independent, reliable coverage of the subject. Whether the Energy Catalyzer actually works is a red herring argument. If a product works has nothing to do with its notability. Silverseren^C 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If the article included only the facts included in reliable sources it would not demonstrate notability, nor would it be any more than "Some guy says he has a magic device. Shitty tests were done, and they might have been fraud." Hipocrite (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources given above discuss the E-Cat in fairly extensive detail. Yes, they say that it is a fraud, but they still discuss the implications of it and the demonstrations that have been made with it. Silverseren^C 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While I'll admit that the popular news articles are plentiful, I think what some of these critics of this article are looking for is some critically reviewed 3rd party scientific journals or other "high quality" references which can be used to write this article. I'll openly admit those don't exist. This has turned into a media circus, and most of what can be found at the moment are news articles which are of general interest and written for the general public rather than for a scientific audience. BTW, this is something generally true for emergent technologies, where it simple takes take for these higher quality sources to show up... even if the thing is a fraud or not.

The argument by User:Hipocrite is attacking the concept itself, and I don't think he understands the concept of notability in the context of Wikipedia. That these general news stories really shouldn't be relied upon for the technical details of how this device works, they can be useful to identify notability in terms of if others are talking about the device, where it is being talked about, if this is something strictly local (such as a high school football legend (your choice on what football means), and more significantly from the standpoint of Wikipedia on a practical level, is this article going to have a sufficient interest on the part of Wikipedia contributors to keep this article being developed. Non-notable articles (thus content which needs to be deleted) usually suffers from a lack of interest, where some well meaning new contributor to Wikipedia writes an article about a broken down train depot or the quarterback of the local football team, where there might even be a local newspaper article about the kid or building. If that topic languishes for years without any other contributors, it can be a problem in terms of vandalism or even fact checking as nobody is even looking at the article.

This doesn't seem to be a problem with Energy Catalyzer as an article, as there certainly is interest in the topic and a great many contributors who want to add their $0.02 into how it works or doesn't. The sources are there, and certainly meet the basic standards of WP:NOTE in terms of what qualifies as notability on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Similar prior AFDs can be seen at 1 2 3 LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Fix - notability isn't really an issue, but sourcing needs to be seriously cleaned up. Insist on secondary reliable sources and this will become a much smaller article that is much easier to vett. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Brian Josephson, a nobel laureate endorses this article. Where does the nominator stand in front of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.47 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment is irrelevant to the discussion, as it gives no policy related rationale. And the answer to the question is 'alongside', as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If awards and qualifications determined article content, Wikipedia would be a very different thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. While the science behind this article may be legitimately questioned, the article itself should be allowed to remain with the caveats that the test has not been duplicated by peer review. Until this occurs, the article should be categorized as an "unverified" test.Richardbamberg (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)— Richardbamberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: The article is painfully unencyclopedic, and should probably be merged into cold fusion. But, the cold-fusion enthusiasts seem committed to establishing a beachhead on Wikipedia. Since it's apparently vital to them to have a playground on this site, we may as well leave them this article for them to do as they see fit. It's keeping them busy, and probably making life easier for the editors at cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like reasoning based on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Better_here_than_there. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, too, but this may be the best way of dealing with the matter. Wikipedia policies are counsels of perfection and do not allow for the ease with which Wikipedia may be disrupted by small and determined pressure groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

Yeah right, that'll work. Reward the POV-pushers by giving them their own articles - that'll discourage them. [/sarcasm] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I make the assumption that the article will be policed by the contributors to this Afd to ensure that it is NPOV. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

So you're not offering to 'police' this playpen yourself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into cold fusion, as it has a similar status. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• How exactly is a product the same as the science it uses? Are you suggesting all wave power products, such as Salter's duck, should be merged into wave power? Or that the Smith-Putnam wind turbine should be merged back into wind power? It's nonsensical. We do it based on reliable sources covering a subject. Silverseren^C 23:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for 'the science it uses'? Nobody else seems to - we have Rossi's claims, but even he won't actually tell anyone anything useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What science does it use? The equivalence of mass and energy; author: Einstein et al ; source: any encyclopedia, anywhere. As for the fine details, a specific theory that expands physics into the realm of the cold fusion is being worked on by people who are making rapid progress and it need not be here now for this article to be here now. Zedshort (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is what it is stated to use. Whether it does or not has nothing to do with notability, again, it has to do with the coverage alone. Silverseren^C 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

At least an argument to merge is a valid argument to make here. My kudos for somebody who is opposed to this article to actually come up with a realistic argument that deserves some discussion. I would have liked some meat on the argument, but I'll take a stab to argue why a marge shouldn't happen here.

In my experience with Wikipedia over the years, article merges are appropriate if the topic is of just temporary interest (usually a week or so), has few other people interested in the topic, and has only one or two references and no primary sources to even look at. It also has to be something of significance to the topic for which it is being merged into as well.

I could wax on about how I think most mergists are out to lunch philosophically, as the logical conclusion to their viewpoint is to merge every article on Wikipedia into one continuous article about human experience and sort of misses the point of why articles are even written in the first place. Far too often merging of an article into some other topic also is just a more polite way to simply request that the topic be deleted entirely, but that the deletion will take place by an edit rather than using admin tools. Basically, I don't see that as a valid option in this situation.

At the very least, what would happen here presuming that a merge would occur, is to have all of the interested contributors jump into the "Energy Catlyzer" section of the Cold Fusion article and be expanding that section to the point it starts to either take over that article or turns into incessant edit wars about what the scope of the article is all about. For this reason alone, on top of the fact that I think there is more than sufficient information available for this particular topic to deserve its own Wikipedia article, it would be better for Wikipedia as a whole and for the Cold Fusion article itself in particular that this action simply not happen. The Cold Fusion article doesn't need this kind of edit warring or chest thumping, and that is better done in a separate article that currently has dozens of daily edits to sort through. In the best interest of Wikipedia and the editing tools themselves, I think keeping this as a separate article works about better for everybody involved and that article merging shouldn't even be an option. Perhaps a real encyclopedia article can be written, or do you care? --Robert Horning (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that merge into "cold fusion" is not an option. The energy catalyzer is mentioned there already in a concise way within the scope of that article. Merging would effectively mean deleting the article and adding a mere line or two to "cold fusion". --POVbrigand (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. This currently surely meets WP:GNG. When the dust settles that may change, or may not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How can something notable become non-notable? It's either notable or it is not. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, guys so this is my first wikipedia discussion, so go easy on me. After reading over many different people's point, I feel like as a physicsist I need to bring up one thing you guys seem to be forgetting or at least not factoring in. Setup: Ever since Kuhn, we have know that scientific and technological progress either occurs to gradual assimilation and adaptation of current theories or there is a rapid paradigm shift where to theories compete. As justified by constant battle back and forth between E-cat's validity this past year, one can clearly see that in this case we are in a paradigm shift between themonuclear fusion and E-cat (cold fusion). My Point: For those out there would disagree with me or that think that E-cat turns out to be a hoax, consider for a moment how the beginning of a paradagm shifts are accompanied by rapidly acceleration technological growth. This acceleration results from both sides know have a concrete and very human foe they are fighting against and must work harder if they expect to win and define the truth. Kuhn himself compared paradigms shifts to nonviolent political revolutions. Even if E-cat turns out to be a hoax it would still have a large influence on nuclear technology as a failure. Thus, I feel like E-cat notiability will always be in the challenge to common fusion idea that helped to make fusion a reality, even if that nuclear fusion is not E-cat..Physics16 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not science. It's more like an alchemist doing a magic show Bhny (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy was an attempt to transmute elements using chemistry. Transmutation of elements via fission and fusion has been known of for years. That fact is well established, now phycists must advance theory into the realm of cold fusion. Zedshort (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for 'advancing theories' - We have policies (not guidelines) that state this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask what any of this has to do with notability of this article? Silverseren^C 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the comments here are about whether it is science or not. As a science article it's not at all notable and should be deleted, but as a thing that is in the news it's notable and should be kept. I voted above for 'keep', but if someone convinces me that this is science I'll change my mind Bhny (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The GNG shouldn't apply any differently between topics, science or not. If it applies to one, then it applies to the other. If it was science, then that would mean that it could have the possibility of establishing presumption of notability through the subject specific notability guidelines, but the GNG is the baseline for proof of notability, as it is no longer presumed, but established. The sources here have clearly established that. (And, I personally think it isn't science. Not until it's shown to work, at least. For now, it's just a product.) Silverseren^C 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a tangential reply; you mentioned being a physicist— you would probably enjoy reading Voodoo Science by Robert L. Park ("an emeritus professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park and a former Director of Public Information at the Washington office of the American Physical Society"). He described various ways in which the scientific process can go wrong; I submit that the eCat has a lot in common with the cold fusion (CF) events of 1989, including going to the press rather than through regular channels. The "paradigm" of CF was demolished and relegated to the realm of fringe science. I strongly suspect, ala User:Zedshort that this is just a new 'alchemy' with cheap clean energy rather than gold; in the 20s/30s you had people like Franz Tausend and Heinz Kurschildgen making fantastic claims too. My gut reaction to Rossi is to hold on to my wallet just a little tighter. -- Limulus (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Dr. George H. Miley's excellent report about low-energy nuclear reactions ( http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi ) has convinced me that Rossi's E-Cat probably is capable of transmuting nickel into copper. I believe that the capabilities of the E-Cat are being honestly represented by Rossi. He is reportedly offering E-Cats for sale to any qualified buyer and he is considering selling stock in his company ( http://ecatnews.com/?p=1197 ). The E-Cat is not a hoax or a scam. The article about the Energy Catalyzer should not be deleted. AnnaBennett (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the commercial break. Can we get back to business now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, the government of Italy has issued a patent to Rossi for his invention, the E-Cat. Rossi has now sold an E-Cat for a sum that probably exceeds $1,000,000. Rossi has not been arrested and charged with perpetrating a fraud in connection with that sale. These facts have strengthened my belief that the E-Cat is being honestly marketed by Rossi. You can believe otherwise but your belief does not give you a license to be rude to me. AnnaBennett (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - This is outside of my area of expertise, but I know dubious vote-stacking when I see it. Non-standard language is being used by a very large number of Keep voters. Sock puppets, meat puppets, whatever — it stinks. This strikes me as a promotional page for a snake oil machine, defended by a sockpuppet army. Sourcing is terrible. Does that make this deletable? Dunno. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What is non-standard language? Zedshort (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's true and pretty much expected for a topic such as this. But, on the other hand, most of the Delete votes also aren't using proper arguments, either saying that there aren't any reliable sources on the product (refuted by sources given above) or that it isn't "real science" and a hoax, so it shouldn't be covered, which isn't even a real argument for deletion anyways. There are even people, amazingly, arguing that passing WP:N doesn't mean anything. Silverseren^C 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That is because passing WP:N is not an automatic indication of validity, per WP:NOT. It is necessary to pass WP:N, but not always sufficient. Of course, since some of the keep !votes seem to be based on WP:IAR, presumably the delete ones can be as well. Or does ignoring rules only apply to the pro-Rossi's-teapot faction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And which one of the WP:NOT sections are you saying this article doesn't pass? Because passing WP:N means that it also passes practically all of the things listed on NOT. Passing WP:N means that it is not OR. If there is any POV in the article, then that should be fixed through normal editing, not deletion. Enduring notability for it being not just news is shown through the coverage of the device being across a fairly large span of time. And those are the only ones I can see that would apply to an article like this. So, which section are you talking about? Silverseren^C 03:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that WP:NOT is neither about OR nor POV, it would appear that you haven't read it. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't read it, since I was talking about the WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTPROMOTION sections. Silverseren^C 05:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've read two sections that support your views. Now read the others, that don't. Anyone can state that "this is o.k. because the policies I cite don't say anything against it", but it isn't much of an argument. Could you drop the Wikilawyering and explain how we can write an encyclopaedic article about something (which we can't describe) apparently doing something else (that we can't confirm), which is supposedly being purchase by customers (which we can't name) from someone who seems currently to be attempting to sell shares in his 'enterprise' (at least, he appears to be if you believe the evidence from some of the !keep comments)? There simply isn't enough verifiable evidence to justify anything more than a stub article - and even that is likely to be seized upon by advocates who cite every minor mention of Rossi's teapot as proof that it works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, reading your numerous comments, I got the impression that you take this issue personally, and not simply as a Wikipedia contributor. I hope you can tell me I'm wrong. Croquant (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can tell me why your comments are relevant to this discussion? I asked Silver seren to explain how we could write an encyclopaedic article with so little information - I'd like a reply, not a digression into my psyche. And yes, I care about this article - because I don't think that Wikipedia should be pushing fringe 'science' on behalf of a quasi-religious 'cold-fusion' cult, and an 'entrepreneur' with a proven track-record of dubious deals who seems to be exploiting the same, from all that we know so far. Could you explain exactly what is wrong with that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions are meant to be very open. A fact of which you, Andy, have used to disparage and ridicule people who support this article as "believers" in a "magic teapot" or "unicorns", cult members, "pro-Rossi's-teapot faction" "quasi-religious 'cold-fusion' cult" or by disparaging the inventor Rossi as a plumber, or a crackpot and by suggesting that he is a criminal. Andy marches about raising his blue middle finger thinking that that will shut everyone up. Anyone so an-armored or rules as he is should be warned that he is showing his deep Teutonic roots. I will be here to respond to all those blue flags with quotes from the "rules" he is so fond flinging in others faces as I know what happens when you back down from a bullying martinet. Zedshort (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your 'Teutonic roots' comment is deeply offensive. Please keep WP free of racist remarks such as this. Thanks for your apology. I realize that you did not intend to mean it in such a way. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and goodbye 109a152a8a146. Are you what some people call a "sock puppet?" You popped in and out very quickly. I wonder is is possible for people such as Andy to disguise themselves in this way? If so I would like to understand how it is done, not that I would do it myself as such behavior is very low. Zedshort (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Zedshort, some comments on the note you left on my talk page: I am quite obviously not AndyTheGrump's meatpuppet, for the same reasons why I'm not his sockpuppet. I’ve never before come across AndyTheGrump and have no idea who or even where he is, and have no activity overlap with him except on this page. I am also clearly not a 'person with a red IP address', as IP addresses do not contain letters. 'a', for example, is a letter. As for the 'red', I never saw the need to have my own user page (if I had my username would be blue), but frankly I don't think I need to justify that to you. Even if I were 'a red IP address', that would hardly be a reason to accuse me of anything just because I commented on a racist remark. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Zedshort, can you tell us how the fuck you know what my 'roots' are, and how this is in any way relevant to an AfD on the E-Cat? That you resort to pig-ignorant racist personal attacks to defend your position can only discredit your cause even further. I assume that the closing admin will take your obvious non-compliance with Wikipedia policy, (and with basic standards of human dignity) into account, and ignore them for the garbage that they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a major problem with your contributions! They antagonise others and result in confrontation. If you could hold back on your sarcasm and discuss things in a civil manner without recourse to swearing then it would go a long way to making this discussion less heated. Tmccc (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you do not seem to understand the concept of sockpuppetry. A sockpuppet is an account created by a user also using another account for the purpose of faking consensus. It would be very unusual for a person to use a sockpuppet to oppose their own views. If you were to read the whole discussion thread, you would see that I have (very early on) taken the opposite stance to Andy's 'delete' view. It would also be odd for a sockpupppet to be used to argue with oneself, as Andy and I have done previously. I am not a fan of Andy's view or arguments, but I respect them. If you would like to become your own sockpuppet, simply create a second user account and use it to support your own views in a discussion. Note, however, that this is strongly discouraged by WP policies, as is any form of racial stereotyping. I have not contributed to this thread any further over the last couple of days as I have already done so exhaustively, and have nothing further to add. This may be why it appears to you that I 'popped in and out very quickly' if you didn't read the whole thread. Reading the whole discussion is usualy a good idea as it helps prevent unnecessary repetition of points that were already raised. If you used 'Teutonic' as a disparaging term without being aware of what it meant or why it might be offensive, please have a look at Teutonic. I am sure you didn't mean to cause offence (to anyone but Andy). If you have further questions, please ask. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Carrite self proclaims that he is an expert on detecting vote-stacking
  • Carrite has no credentials proclaiming him as an expert on vote-stacking
• Carrite concludes that a large number of keep voters use non-standard language
  • that's an exaggeration and generalisation, most keep voters use perfectly normal language to elaborate their viewpoint.
  • non-standard language is not prohibited on wikipedia. It is fair to assume that this article draws a lot of attention from native Italian speaking contributers.
• Carrite concludes that users of non-standard language are sock puppets, meat puppets
  • That conclusion is very, very disrespectful towards all contributers throughout wikipedia who are non native speakers.

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the E-Cat is either bad science or a hoax. Nevertheless it is interesting, at least for entertainment, like e. g. the bending of spoons by telekinesis by Uri Geller or the UFO contactees George Adamski and Billy Meier. My critical views on the E-cat can be found here: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667 (will soon be on-line). In my opinion Rossi's experiment lacks of controls (the heat flow was measured only once before the experiment), gives insuficient information (how were the isotope intensities measured, i. e. details of the method are required), and includes too much secrecy (what is the secret catalyst?), just like occultism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.189.249 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Kuhne, please note that "occultism" and "trade secret" are not synonyms. AnnaBennett (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There appear to be plenty of secondary sources about this. Here's a sampling I found in just a couple minutes of Googling: Forbes, Popular Science, Network World, Science News, The Scotsman, etc. I'm sure there are more if I spent more time looking for them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep We have a lot of policies that we can haggle over. However, on the top level, only WP:V speaks directly to "inclusion" and the topic does satisfy this policy. Definitions of pseudoscience aside, I am not convinced we have policy that would clearly support exclusion. All other concerns are best addressed on the article talk page. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOT- particularly WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:CRYSTALBALL etc, etc, etc. Or don't. Frankly, if Wikipedia wants to become a free web-hosting site for snake-oil salesmen, hucksters, and other purveyors of whatever hogwash will earn them a profit, then fine. Just remove the description 'encyclopaedia' from the main page (and everywhere else), on the basis that there is no verifiable source for it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. That the e-cat is a textbook example of pseudoscience and that the sources only relay Rossi's claims is a very strong argument for stubification and possible merger, etc. I just can't support them as reasons for deletion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on a source. A lot seems to derive from something called Ny Teknik. Wikipedia (not a reliable source, of course) says of this: a weekly Swedish newspaper with news, debates and ads in the field of technology and engineering. It is distributed to all members of The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers. Assuming that this is true, what do the majority of the members then do with it? Do they read it before using it as kindling or whatever? Here is its publisher's page about it; on the front page of the issue illustrated, the main stories seem to be about Swedish banknotes and the Batmobile. (NB I cannot read Swedish.) And it's not even alleged that this is a magazine for scientists; instead one for engineers. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes. I'd say that judging from the content, they seem to be a reliable source for articles on mainstream technology (one would assume that their readers would notice if they weren't), but that they are hopelessly out of their depth with the E-Cat (they admit as much themselves). This wouldn't matter particularly were it not for a great deal of evidence that the rest of the media frenzy around the E-Cat is sources either from Ny Teknik, or from our article (note the almost complete absence of any significant independent data in other mainstream sources). Basically, far too much of this article is derived from a source that only got involved in the first place because of the enthusiasm of a handful of journalists - and they seem to have become increasingly entangled with Rossi's publicity machine, to the extent that they aren't just reporting events, they are participating in them - making measurements during 'demonstrations' for example. To their credit, they have acknowledged that their reports aren't adequate to assess the E-Cat, which obviously needs proper independent testing, but others seem content to ignore such provisos, and recycle their reports without the disclaimers. Not a pretty sight... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Others' stupidity is hardly this magazine's fault, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on windiness and smoke: This article is bizarre. A screenful is taken up by 5 Commercial plans / 5.1 Defkalion / 5.2 AmpEnergo / 5.3 Undisclosed customer. In another article, this might be OK, but here it all seems to boil down to None has yet been sold, and there is no solid evidence that any sale is forthcoming. Which itself is uninteresting, as this, um, technology has so far only been trumpeted for less than one year. Why all this talk about, essentially, nothing? Could it be: In order to give the impression to the careless, impressionable reader that hard-headed, no-nonsense, concerned-with-the-bottom-line corporations believe in the technology? Or: "Let's create smoke; the reader may imagine fire"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a claim of a sale to the undisclosed customer, the cooperation with Defkalion was stoppped as is readable from the text. AmpEnergo is not so much a customer but a sales partner. It is unfortunate that you read this section as trying to impress the careless reader, because that is not what most editors are trying to achieve. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Pseudoscience, scam or ground breaking technology, this subject is generating interest in the mass media and general public and qualifies as notable. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. While I concur with many of the comments above regarding the content and quality of the article, if this article is deleted, shouldn't also all references to Fleischman and Pons be deleted from Wikipedia, as mainstream science has discredited the results due to lack of theory and reproducability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonzo (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Wtshymanski has asserted that the Energy Catalyzer is a "scam" and that it "should not have an independent article". Wtshymanski has recommended that the article about the E-Cat be deleted.

Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-Cat, asserts that the E-Cat produces more energy than it consumes. However, he has declined to give complete details about his invention in order to protect his intellectual property.

Dr. George Miley has publicly stated that he and his associates have built a “generalized heat source” that "can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts"(http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/mr-rossi-goes-to-market-dr-miley-and-others-hope-to-follow/). Dr. Miley asserts that this generalized heat source generates heat by low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Dr. Miley is a well-respected scientist and, based on his report, I am willing to give Andrea Rossi the benefit of the doubt — for the next six months. During that time, he will probably sell one or more additional 1 megawatt E-Cats and, as his patent applications are approved, he will be able to disclose more details about his invention. At that point, scientists will be able to build or buy E-Cats and verify Rossi's claims.

I recommend that this AfD be closed now. AnnaBennett (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Grouping sources here, some comments:

• Popular Science [20] good, but 10 months old

• Wired [21][22][23]

• Science Reporter (magazine) [24]

• Focus (Italian magazine) [25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

• Italian newspapers,
  La Stampa [32] [33],
  Il Sole 24 Ore [34] [35],
  La Repubblica [36],
  Il Tempo [37],
  Il Resto del Carlino [38],
  Il Fatto Quotidiano [39]

• Italian newsmagazines,
  Oggi, "Fusione Fredda. Ecco la macchina dell'energia pulita" p. 1 2 3,
  Panorama "Parla lo scienziato che ha inventato la fusione nucleare a freddo" "Fusione nucleare a freddo: i dubbi del fisico Antonio Zoccoli"

• Italian State-owned national television stations (Rai),
  Rai 2 on TG2 (State-owned news programme, very important in Italy) reports on the E-Cat during national edition [40],
  Rai News (24-hour all-news State-owned television channel)
  1) a 25-minute television documentary [41]
  2) in-depth interviews with Professor Sergio Focardi, other scientists and patents experts about the E-Cat [42] [43]
  ( NOTE: Italian national TV stations added by me.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) )

• Italian national radio stations,
  State-owned Radio 1 [44] a 4-minute interview,
  State-owned Radio 2 [45] Fusione Fredda/ Rai radio2 intervista,
  Confindustria's Radio 24, Il ritorno della fusione fredda Fusione fredda: una possibile spiegazione
  ( NOTE: Italian national radio stations added by me.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) ) 79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Telepolis (German) Kalte Fusion in der Black Box? ).

• Makedonia (newspaper) (Greek) [46]

• financial newspaper Express (Greek) Επένδυση 200 εκατ. στην Ξάνθη για «πράσινη» ενέργεια

• State-owned New Hellenic Television ‬.

• Networkworld [47] computing-related magazine, not appropiate for science claims

• Fox News [48][49]

• Washington Times [50], 8 months old

• Discovery News Cold Fusion Claims Resurface

• Coast to Coast AM Rossi Cold Fusion Device.

• Voice of Russia Cold fusion: reality or utopia?: Voice of Russia.

• Tehran Times [51]

• Scotsman [52] Google points to the wrong page, the real article must be offline. If someone is suscribed, please search for "Andrea Rossi" and send me a copy of the article.

• Forbes [53][54][55] blogs hosted at Forbes? Do they have editorial control?

• American Chronicle [56] no editorial control

• Science News [57] only mentioned in comments to the article

• e-catworld.com, ecatnews.com, ecatsite.wordpress.com Promotional websites, maybe part of a marketing campaign, who knows.

• peswiki.com no editorial control, (mostly uncritical) coverage of fringe science, borders on promotional

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE - THE ABOVE POST HAS BEEN EDITED BY ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO GUIDELINES AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooops... Sorry, I thought it was a list that was open to contributions from other users.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Daily Mail [58]

• Falls Church News [59]

• msnbc [60]

• CBS News [61]

• Dutch national TV [62], Labyrint

• Major German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [63]

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the 'Falls Church News' article cites Wikipedia as a source, as has already been pointed out. [64]. This sloppy attitude to sourcing is one of the main reasons the article is such a mess - and if you remove the questionable sources, what is actually left? The word of the 'inventor', Rossi, that his device (whatever it is) works, and a list of his performances/demonstrations, together with a pile of empty speculation. I simply can't see how this can be turned into an encyclopaedic article without contravening WP:FRINGE, WP:NOT etc - there just isn't enough verifiable evidence for anything beyond Rossi's hype and spin - which Wikipedia is becoming a significant player in. If (as seems highly probable), this is a hoax, we aren't just reporting it - we are actually perpetuating it ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Falls Church News did not state that it used Wikipedia as a source but only invited the reader here for further reading: "If you are interested in the details of all this, the account in Wikipedia under "Energy Catalyzer" gives a reasonably balanced version of the story thus far." You are making assumptions about what the writer used as a source. Zedshort (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. I'm making assumptions about 'what the writer used as a source' based on what the writer refers to as the source for his 'balanced version'. Of course, if you can provide evidence that this local-paper journalist went all the way to Italy to interview Rossi, we can perhaps reconsider this source as being more than what it appears to be - recycled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." This is not a subject within another article. You referenced WP:NOT and that does not apply perhaps you meant WP:NOTE: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This subject has been around for years and the foundation cold fusion has been around even longer and the two have become increasingly topical, and important for too many reasons to list. Zedshort (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What has that to do with the fact that people are using an article (from an obscure local paper) sourced from Wikipedia to assert 'notability'? And no, I meant  : not a newspaper, not a blog, not advertising, not... well, not worthy of anything that calls itself 'an encyclopedia', unless citing ourselves as a reliable source has suddenly become policy. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Strong Keep Removing this article would not be an error: it will be a fault. A lot of people are ennoyed because they cannot reproduce this device. ( Me the first ! ) That is a fact that the patent is not sufficient to make one: some it's features are protected by the secret: try once to build a B-2 bomber or an atomic bomb with the public patents and press pictures: it will be at least so difficult ! But, working as described or not, this device exist: it's a fact ! A lot of people are speaking about it, it's possible to order one. Perhaps most of people doesn't like Mr Rossi's communication strategy: that's their right, that his choice ! First, you cannot delete this article exactly as you cannot delete the articles: perpetual movement, phantom, ectoplasm, spiritism, aso ! If you delete this article, perhaps you have also to delete the article on God or Satan ! You can only inform that the system is doubtful for specific reasons ! ( and precise these reasons ) Second: this device is perhaps the most annoyng device of History for both petrol and nuclear industry. For that reason: the article must stay. And perhaps,in a few months, if somebody proves seriously that this device doesn't work , precise in the item that it was a fraud... ( Fraud, but existing ! ) --Bmrpire (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• proposal. Because of the Afd procedure was first closed and then reopened, I propose to keep the procedure open for other 10 days in order to be 100% sure to thoroughly discuss all the matters involved in a proper way.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no new information being presented or new arguments being offered. I seriously don't understand why this AfD was re-opened, and what is happening here in terms of pushing to get this article deleted. Another ten days is not going to be changing minds, unless there is a serious issue under dispute. The only thing being argued right now is if Rossi is a fraud and that this device may or may not actually exist. That is not a legitimate rationale for article deletion. If you have something to bring forward, a rationale for deletion based upon policy, cite the policy and discuss why in your opinion it should be deleted. Re-opening a closed discussion like this is flat-out wrong and should not have happened. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have a better idea. We'll follow the recommendation of User:TenOfAllTrades made at WP:FTN and redirect to Andrea Rossi. Close this waste-of-time AfD. We might as well do this now and avoid the endless and pointless debates. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Alreardy discussed above. Two different subjects. Moreover the Energy Catalyzer was developed as a joint work by Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi.

--79.16.129.195 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or incubate as WP:TOOSOON. Until there's a concensus as to whether this is real and hoax or something else, it's not encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Too soon for what exactly? It could be real, it could be a hoax (likely), but either one wouldn't change the notability of it. The clear list of sources up above shows that the subject of the E-Cat is notable. Do you have an argument for why those sources don't show that? Silverseren^C 06:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• See WP:CRYSTAL. There has been no serious reporting of this so far in the scientific literature. All those reading the endorsements by Brian Josephson should take into account what has happened in the past with telepathy, cold fusion [65] and water memory [66]. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• "strong keep" For several important resons; Just possibly the single most important discovery in recent times, the importance of free impartial discussion and a free democratic medi a-(such as wiki could claim to be), as far as Focardi is concerned this interesting phenomena has been studied and mused over for approx 20 years, by several different scientific camps-and all concluded there was a genuine/ unexplainable reaction. At the very least this article needs to be kept until such time as the decision has been made by the scientific community as to this generators validity-it provides an excellent way of understanding the history and circumstances of E-Cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.97.122 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — 42.241.97.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This 'discussion' should never have been reopened. No new points are being brought forward, and it's going around in circles. One useful thing to come out of it is POVbrigand's long list of available sources, including major publications such as la Repubblica, Daily Mail, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The only challenged source seems to be some small paper called 'Church Falls News'. A lot of the articles present balanced views and are suitable sources for both sides of the argument that seems to be at the heart of this discussion (i.e. the eCat does/doesn't work). I really fail to understand the argument against it being notable. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (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.