Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 DoE panel on cold fusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete as a POV fork. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2004 DoE panel on cold fusion[edit]
- 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is a POV fork of cold fusion, which is already a battleground due to attempts by the authors of this article to skew cold fusion towards ever greater support for the fringe view that low temperature nuclear fusion is a reality. This article appears to serve mainly to undermine the credibility of the panel, which panel has no particular significance outside the very small world of cold fusion advocacy. This article, moreover, is an essay on the report written by its opponents. It is highly sceptical of the report. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the 2004 DoE panel generated a lot of interest "outside the very small world of cold fusion advocacy". See here a partial list of newsreports: [1] [2] [3] [4]. If the article shows POV, this should be addressed by editing it, not removing it. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a definite POV-fork. This panel is not notable outside the general topic of "cold fusion". There is no indication that we need a separate article. We should content-fork properly (when the article that discusses the subject becomes too big) not artificially (just to create a walled garden). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure yet- The article sucks, that's for sure. At the time of my comments there is only one ordinarily reliable source used in the footnotes, the rest seem to be selfpublished comments on the panel and its work. So, notability is a question. pcarbon has some poential sources that might make a better article, but if it's not fixed up and the self published comments removed, I don't think we should keep it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fundamental problem here is that it's Pcarbonn's essay on why the DoE panel was wrong not to fund more research, wy they were wrong not to find that the effect exists, why they were wrong not to be convinced by the pro cold fusion lobby and why their methodology was wrong, in that it did not lead to the conclusion the pro cold fusion lobby wanted. If anyone is going to write an article on this subject, they would first have to overcome the fact that all the detailed commentary comes from people pushing the pro cold fusion POV. And that's why I think it needs deleted: the mainstream read the report, nodded and filed it under "we already knew that". Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with deletion as the lack of reliable sources indicates a limited notability for inclusion. Generally, I think of myself as an inclusionist, I don't mind there being some fairly short sub-articles on topics, but they have to stand on their own, and I'm not really seeing the case that this does. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that this article summarizes 2 different documents: the one presented by cold fusion researchers to the DOE panel, and the report written by DOE panelists. All statements in the article can be sourced to one or the other document. Both are cited in the page in the source section. This article is not an essay that I would have written to prove anything. Also, please check the list of news related to this panel: [5] [6] [7] [8] Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of your sources are in the article. A review of a government report is hardly encyclopedic. Delete --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that this article summarizes 2 different documents: the one presented by cold fusion researchers to the DOE panel, and the report written by DOE panelists. All statements in the article can be sourced to one or the other document. Both are cited in the page in the source section. This article is not an essay that I would have written to prove anything. Also, please check the list of news related to this panel: [5] [6] [7] [8] Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with deletion as the lack of reliable sources indicates a limited notability for inclusion. Generally, I think of myself as an inclusionist, I don't mind there being some fairly short sub-articles on topics, but they have to stand on their own, and I'm not really seeing the case that this does. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – to the Cold Fusion. There is information out there primarily concerned with exactly the point the article makes. However, there doest not seem to be notable attention regarding the event to have its own entry in Wikipedia. As such, reduce the article and merge to Cold Fusion Shoessss | Chat 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already there, at least as much as is not undue weight, though Pcarbonn would love for there to be more material undermining the board. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although it would, I think, be possible to demonstrate notability for this review, notability is a necessary not a sufficient condition for the existence of an article. In this particular case, the only worthwhile summary of the review that could be constructed would be too short to merit a separate article and would be better placed within Cold fusion, which it already is. The greater part of the article as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia - in particular summarizing a scientific paper from any discipline by Wikipedia editors is borderline original research - we should rely on reporting summaries written by specialists. Moreover, the 'Conclusions' section is totally unreferenced (in spite of being the section where one would expect the most diligent citations) and appears to contradict some parts of the preceding sections. If we were to cut the elements of the article that are undesirable (even in a rewritten form) nothing would remain that is not already covered elsewhere. The label POV Fork is difficult to apply without being able to judge some measure of intent and so I have no opinion on that issue. CIreland (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I did not summarize a scientific paper, but instead relied "on summaries written by specialists", ie. on the summary report submitted to the DOE panel by the cold fusion researchers. Please note that there are 2 documents in support of this article: the one submitted to the panel, and the panel report. Hence the apparent contradiction. Both are cited in the page in the source section. If more citations are needed, they can be added. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above - it's PoV-fork rather than a topic notable outside Cold fusion, the existing page is heavily arguing the credulous PoV with most sources taken from a single vanity site. A year ago I asked for a cite to these alleged reviewer comments, and the only source for that seems to be the Rothwell site. --Noren (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obvious POV fork. However, its main reference should be put into the Cold fusion article. Cardamon (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.