Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Thanks to everyone who participated in this debate; it was certainly very informative to weigh everyone's arguments and check out the subject matter. m.o.p 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

CETI Patterson Power Cell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable electrolysis device. No Significant coverage outside of this on-line review which does not seem to be from a reliable source. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite the enthusiastic claims to the contrary from the cold-fusion boosters, this device has led to absolutely zero response in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific sources. It seems only to have survived a previous AfD because of media attention(back in the mid 1990s) - and the media doesn't seem to be showing an interest any more. As an article about anything of scientific merit, it is singularly lacking evidence. As a magnet for POV-pushers, it seems to be highly attractive - but Wikipedia isn't here to publicise their contraptions, or their wild claims. If and when 'cold fusion' is recognised by mainstream science, Wikipedia can discuss it - but we aren't here to provide hype, speculation, and opportunities for dubious characters to flog magic teapots to the gullible. And no, www.padrak.com isn't a reliable source for anything remotely science-based (or reality-based, I suspect) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Invalid argument per Notability Notability was assessed in the last AfD with the result to keep --POVbrigand (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * HOLD ON I'm working on this article. The version on the page doesn't really reflect the real content. There are many more sources.


 * this is the actual article at this moment


 * this is the one you nominated for deletion


 * 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — 84.106.26.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. This article isn't new. It isn't a developing situation. If there were any remotely-useful sources (as opposed to the usual junk) they would have been found. they don't exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was greatly improved by 84.106.26.81, but his additions were reverted by AndyTheGrump. I have reverted to his old revision which seems to explain the article in detail. » εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk  Ͼδητrιβμτιoης  06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - WAY better sourced than when the AfD was started. There was a brief edit war over the additions but that appears to have been resolved. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The foremost reason to keep "CETI Patterson Power Cell" is that Wikipedia will make itself look utterly foolish if it deletes the article.
 * The short version of the article needs two or three paragraphs which explain, in very simple terms, why the PPC has been the topic of dozens of scientific and mass-media reports. Who alleges "excess heat", and how much, and what tests have been performed. And who alleges nuclear transmutations, and what tests have been performed. And were any of the tests conducted in accordance with scientific standards? These questions can be answered in a few paragraphs, giving the average reader (Wikipedia customers) the information they need to understand the PPC and the controversy about it.
 * The PPC produces hydrogen gas, which readily diffuses into solid nickel (see hydrogen embrittlement). Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer depends on this kind of diffusion. The PPC and the E-Cat are two peas in the same pod, so if you delete one of those articles you should delete the other article too.
 * Don't make yourselves look foolish. AnnaBennett (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Change to Neutral Delete  I finished checking source 8 when I figured that the rest were just as poor quality and gave up. Websites like the New Energy times are not enough to establish notability outside of a small fringe circle.  CETI is specific is mentioned recently in passing but not substantially outside of fringe publications, including their press releases.  Furthermore, WP does WP:NOT exist to host "the next big thing," we create articles after something becomes big.  If this device truly does what it says it does, then it will be featured in every science journal in the world soon enough, and when it is we will have an article on it. If it doesn't (and it's been 15 years), then it was just a minor blip in the history of impossible perpetual motion machines and nothing to write home about. Looks like the article sourcing has been cleaned up a bit.  I'm still not convinced that it's notable but I'm on the fence that it isn't.    N o f o rmation  Talk  08:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * delete - per nom; NN fringery William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is NN fringery ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ("NN" means "Non-Notable", as in not passing the general notability guide). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article attempts to make exceptional claims based on non-reliable sources and is a classic violation of WP:REDFLAG - see Talk:CETI Patterson Power Cell for a partial list. The cell itself is the subject to patents and garnered a little interest about 15 years ago by making unsubstantiated claims of output power 4,000 times the power input and that's about all that can be said. The rest of the article is pure fringe and demonstrates that it is being used as a COATRACK to hang wild claims of cold fusion on. We already have a properly written, sourced and developed article on that topic. This article is attempting to revive all of the issues that quack sources brought to the field and deserves no place on Wikipedia. The article was not "greatly improved" by stuffing it with garbage cites and I reject Barts1a's assertion that it is better sourced. Masses of non-reliable sources do not equal better sourcing, they simply create an illusion of sourcing for those who do not examine them. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, improve The nominator is wrong in stating that there is no RS. Read these RS:, , and . Please note that this device is not a current ongoing topic, it is history in the field of cold fusion and the CETI patterson power cell has its importance in the history of cold fusion. George H. Miley from University of Illinios Urbana-Champaign has spent considerable time investigating this device. FWIW, it even got a patent. As long as the article represents the device as not scientifically proven, there is nothing wrong with having an article on this notable cold fusion device. Just because Rossi is currently stirring up the media coverage with his Energy Catalyzer (which article survived a AfD), doesn't mean that the few articles about other noteworthy cold fusion devices should be suddenly up for deletion. Deletion would be an overreaction to the last edits, the best solution is to just revert back to an older version that doesn't depend non-RS.
 * - It is mentioned on page 36 of this book on cold fusion published in 2009 by ENEA (Italy), so it still is notable. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC) Please note that before this AfD I have made no edits to this article. 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.
 * - The device is mentioned in the book "The science of the cold fusion phenomenon" By Hideo Kozima published by Elsevier, Sep 26, 2006
 * - The device is mentioned in the book "Excess heat: why cold fusion research prevailed" by Charles G. Beaudette 2002
 * And according to Google Books it is mentioned in several other books. Deleting this for Notabilty would be a grave mistake, which would call for immediate deletion review. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On February 7, 1996, ABC News shows Good Morning America and Nightline featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell. Good Morning America followed up the story one year later, on June 11, 1997


 * Comment Nomimator's editing behaviour raises some eyebrows for me. He/she has made almost no edits in the past and starting today has made a barrage of AfDs in little more than 1 hour time. I just wonder how he/she gained all this AfD knowhow during the dormant period. And how the nominator stumbled upon this page. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable fringe topic. I've looked through the sources, and almost all of them are unreliable and fringe, and the remaining one is questionable. No significant independent coverage to establish notability. Obvious promotional WP:COATRACK for fringe "cold-fusion" theory. Can be deleted in its entirety. There is nothing worth saving here. The article can never be brought up to WP standards. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is just not true. Please explain why you think that physicsworld.com, www.wired.com, New scientists (www.sciam.com) and ieeexplore.ieee.org are unreliable and fringe. Notability was already established in 2007. Please explain why you think that "Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion" - by Bart Simon is fringe and unreliable. Please explain why you think that Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications published by Wiley is fringe and unreliable. The patterson power cell is a notable cold fusion device, which doesn't mean that is accepted to work. It is not a coatrack for cold fusion theory. The article was fair enough up to WP standard for the last 4 years. Yes it is a fringe topic, but there is no reason to delete it and certainly not for such uninformed reasoning. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because consensus can change and notability is a judgement call depending on consensus. 2007 is not now and we don't have be ruled by the dead hand of a 4 year old AfD. I do see a value in your reasoning, but when you look at the passing mention of this device in the reliable sources, it is very borderline for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". You could sum up this article thus: "James A. Patterson developed and patented an electrolytic cell in the mid-1990s. The cell was used to attempt to create cold fusion. Some claims of success were made and received some media attention. Subsequently none of the claims have been substantiated by any mainstream research." - and to be honest that deserves possibly half a paragraph in a section in the Cold fusion article. By the way, a Google search on "patterson power cell" (the phrase) returns 187 results, not 32,000 and you probably already know that ghits are a poor indicator of notability - RexxS is more notable than "patterson power cell" by that standard (about 21,800 ghits) and I don't see anyone queueing up to complain about the absence of my article! --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes concensus can change, but notability is still given. It has even gained notability, as a few newer RS have also mentioned it. Now I am with you when you say the article could be much smaller. Since the AfD has started already a lot of the unnecessary non-RS bloat has been deleted. Regarding the google search, I already found that out myself and corrected the comment :-) But there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about this device and I lately note that there is a lot of "hatred" for anything that is cold fusion. This device was part of the research of a very well respected scientists (Miley being a Fellow APS, fellow ANS, fello IEEE and fellow NATO) Now that doesn't mean this device works, but it also shouldn't be dismissed as is currently done here in this AfD. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a given; it must be shown to be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it has been shown to be notable. The device is mentioned in enough reliable sources. If you would count them you would run out of fingers on both your hands. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of speculating it is better if you list the sources that have significant coverage of the device. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did that, just read my comments here on this page --POVbrigand (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think, unless someone can convince me otherwise based on policy. I spotted Wired, and a US Patent among the sources. That's pretty dang solid sourcing if you ask me. Could someone explain why something that is sourced from Wired could possibly be NN? It can be a lot of other things, but NN and RS aren't among them. I'm not saying it works or doesn't work (though I have my suspicions ;-) ), but rather, it has been reported on, those reports are in the archives, and thus anyone can check that yes, at some time, someone proposed this concept. Whether or not the concept sucks is a different matter, irrelevant to Wikipedia. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Patents are primary sources. I wouldn't rely on primary sources for reliability. Are you claiming a mention in Wired confers notability? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wired is a reasonably reliable source, as far as mainstream magazine coverage is ever going to go, and perfectly adequate here. What's wrong with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The patent bureau is a reliable (canonical) source wrt the existence of a patent. The content of the patent is not necessarily relevant qua notability (qua reliability is another question entirely).
 * From my own (n=1) experience with a wired journalist, they may not exactly always be equally accurate, but they do spell people's names right afaik, and thus are also a reliable source wrt actual existence of this project, and probably have at least the general gist of things right too. But that aside, they're a 3rd party source, so we can write what they said. We don't need to agree with them for NPOV purposes. Whether the project was successful or not, or fraudulent or honest, or whatever else we might think of them personally is not relevant. We have sufficient sources to build an article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, fringe science, coat rack, unreliable sources. Crackpot science. Yworo (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should being a non-functional device excelude it from coverage? Our goal here is to explain things. Explaining frauds and crackpot devices is a valuable part of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, there are too few reliable sources to have an article on it. Creating an article on something mentioned in a handful of reliable sources sounds inherently problematic. In the last deletion discussion there was also promises on how the article would be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reductions made by Yworo and IRWolfie have made the article into a better source of information about the device, far less promotional and a little more skeptical. I think the article should be retained so that readers can be informed about the device's fraudulent nature. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable device: it's covered in Voodoo Science and in Wired. Whether it works or not is just not on our radar. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are now enough reliable sources to justify keeping the article. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough notability to justify an article on the subject.--Insilvis
 * Keep. There is a story of interest beyond the science due to the publicly surrounding it at the time, as has been stated here already. I believe that it is notable as an interesting news story for that time period if nothing else. Regarding Mr. Patterson's claims, those who actually examined the device, namely Dr. Miley and Dr. Cravens, both gave the claims credence after their respective examinations.  As mentioned in the previous deletion attempt, Dr. Miley was a winner of the Edward Teller Medal in 1995. On the to the other hand, Huizeinga and Park are both better known for their criticisms than their scientific achievements. Huizeinga's statement that he "bet" it wouldn't work is conjecture, not science.  As for peer-review, the PPC was never submitted for such.  That fact in and of itself does not make claims invalid. To argue otherwise would be a logical fallacy. As a matter of record, there are NO logical arguments to delete this article.  The fact that it was nominated for deletion a second time in such a short time span, for reasons that have no logical basis, is bothersome.Badhillbili (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The sourcing isn't impeccable, but it appears to have been mentioned in sufficient reliable sourcing to justify a Wikipedia article.  On a related note, I'm not sure why a small group of editors take it so personally that there might be articles in Wikipedia related to cold fusion.  My advice to them...it's not about you, it's about presenting the information and letting the reader decide. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the sourcing is a disgrace. A few reliable sources are being used to coatrack multiple unreliable sources and unsubstantiated claims into this article. There's nothing personal about the topic, but it defies belief that "presenting the information" should include such sourcing as these that appeared recently:
 * - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
 * Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff - what makes earthtech a RS?
 * http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html - how can this be considered a RS?
 * - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
 * Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79.(archive) - what makes newenergytimes.com a RS?
 * Jet Rothwell, Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Technology Magazine, One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated December 7, 1995 - what makes Cold Fusion mag a RS (it's self-published, not an MIT-reviewed source)?
 * Transcript of ABC-TV "Good Morning America" Program on Cold Fusion Excess Energy and Radioactivity Reduction, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by Infinite Energy magazine. - what makes Infinite Energy mag a reliable source?
 * - what makes Lightworks Audio Video a RS?
 * Notable or not, the subject is simply not worth an article in Wikipedia and the chronic appallingly low ratio of decent sources to garbage sources amply demonstrates that. Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for an article to exist. --RexxS (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem are the edits from IP 84.106. I have reverted them. It seems that editor is not capable to understand what he is causing and keeps on pushing stuff in as if he is desperately trying to get this article deleted. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a requirement that all refs meet WP:RS - it depends on the use to which individual cites are put, and on the claims made. It's a requirement that there are refs to WP:RS, so as to demonstrate notability - we have those. As to the rest, then unfortunately it's a matter for copyediting on a cite by cite basis (and the work this entails). A ref to "Good Morning America" is a reasonable cite for it having appeared on national TV, but not for a claim "the machine was demonstrated working on TV" (it's not a competently controlled experiment), or that "national TV figures applauded the machine and agreed that it worked" (we no longer trust people's competence, just because they're on TV). I'm sorry, but this means some hard copyediting work by unbiased editors (who can be brutal if they have to) - that's the price of a quality encyclopedia. What we can't do is let unreliable claims slip past, but nor are we really allowed to simply delete refs without analysing their context. Nor can we delete an article because it contains weak refs as well as string ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Andy, I fully agree with you. Some sources are rock solid RS, some are never RS and for the others it depends on how you use them. We can go through them one by one and see if and how we can add them. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This page is interesting. Gravitoweak (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding it WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument for a keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. It might well be the first AfD for this editor.
 * @Gravitoweak, if you feel that this article should stay, then maybe you can look at what other editors who want this article deleted say about it and respond to that. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:ONEEVENT. I'd recommend looking into the histories of the keep votes where you will find dedicated cold-fusion-promotion accounts. It is a not very-well kept secret that cold fusion promoters routinely ask their friends to start Wikipedia accounts to help them POV-push here. That's what's going on here. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So how do you explain my 'keep' comment? I have made many tens of thousands of Wikipedia edits, very very few in cold fusion. You may be right about a few editors but the generalization falls down in the face of people like me. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted me. Not every 'keep' comment is the provenance of a cold-fusion-promoter. But looking into the histories of the keep voters will reveal some who are, and that should be considered when evaluating the "consensus" of this discussion. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? At the moment, the article pretty much suggests the device is a fraud (based on reliable sources). If anything, those of the opinion that we should delete must be the cold fusion proponents! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Also, to reach consensus: attack the argument, not the arguer.
 * I think you'll find that in that cold fusion community they think that any external notice, no matter how critical, is something for which to strive. Short of writing in big letters, "Cold fusion is bunk, nothing to see here" on top of every article, they're going to be in favor of keeping as much in the hopper as possible. The ostensible goal of the cold fusion community is to obtain serious consideration of their various approaches and ideas. They are 100% convinced that if the relevant epistemic communities just paid attention to them, they will win the battle. This in spite of the fact that the periodic reviews of their field that have occurred have all turned up nothing new. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we won't quite do that, because AFD is not a vote to begin with ;-) . If people's arguments are valid, they will be taken into account. WP is nice that way. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I see with this vote for deletion is inappropriate use of Wiki criteria and appeals to prejudice but no rational arguments. The use of WP:ONEEVENT is not appropriate.  That tag, according to the definition, regards INDIVIDUALS notable for one event.  The PPC is not an individual or an event. The voter also makes several generalizations about the nature of those who vote for Keep without addressing the main issue, which is the criteria for which this article should be deleted based on the merits or lack thereof.  In addition, repeated and sweeping generalizations about any group of people are prejudicial in nature and I object to the repeated use of such in regards to this discussion.Badhillbili (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And out of the woodwork they come! 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. Though I still think I said it more nicely. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC) And AFD is not -in fact- a vote. We deliberately renamed it to emphasize that fact. :-P 
 * You indicated that Wikipedia doesn't care if it's being misused as a propaganda piece as long as the arguments being twisted can trick the regulars. I'm just pointing out what's going on. You guys can take it or leave it. Claiming that this non-notable device has had more than notice for a singular event is unreasonable. Oh, WP:ONEEVENT only applies to people does it? Well, guess what: There is a particular person to whom I'm referring: James A. Patterson. This is subbing as a biography for him, and inappropriately so. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your ideas do not correspond with WP policies. It appears to me you are trolling. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another classic maneuver. Just because the so-called "WP policies" can be interpreted and reinterpreted to salve the wounds of cold fusion proponents is a nice tactic, but I have a feeling that a checkuser would reveal you to be a banned editor, POVbrigand, probably someone like Pcarbonn or LossIsNotMore or Abd or one of the dozens of other haunting figures that dominate cold fusion talk archives. Oh wait, we aren't supposed to engage in such personal attacks? Except, you just did by calling me a "troll". Nice. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You did start with the name-calling ;-) . Seeing some of the other comments, I get a feeling that maybe you have a bit of a point ("as long as one spells the name right"). Nevertheless, if we can NPOVly say that some folks made a device, but apparently it never really worked; that's fine by me. The readers can draw their own conclusions. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem*, I pointed out that there was an ulterior motive. The word "troll" was when the name-calling began. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The readers can draw their own conclusions"... I disagree with this concept wholeheartedly. This stance is the argument of minor and fringe viewpoints who hope to see an article that has an artificial parity set between mainstream viewpoints and non-mainstream. We do not do that: we show the reader that the mainstream viewpoint is, uh, the main viewpoint, and then we describe the minor viewpoint giving it proper weight. Under those conditions, this article should be primarily telling the reader the device is complete bollocks even though some very hopeful folks are working on it. In other words, we do not let the reader draw their own conclusion inasmuch as we guide the reader to see what is the mainstream viewpoint. If after all that they draw a non-mainstream conclusion, so be it... But foremost is the mainstream view. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. WP is not about right or wrong. The problem we do have with cold fusion topics is "the mainstream view". The "mainstream view" is actually not known. The mainstream view is a black box. There is no yearly poll of what most scientists think about cold fusion. What we do know however is the "assumed mainstream view". Do "Science" or "Nature" dictate the mainstream view or define the assumption of it, is the mainstream view pegged due to a 1989/2004 DOE review ? "cold fusion" is dogma and dogma is the mainstream view. There are loads of scientists working in "condensed matter science" or "laser science" or "surface science" or other "adjacent" or "connected" mainstream science fields, who are performing experiments that are definitely not "cold fusion", but if you were to ask those scientists if "strange stuff" is thinkable on the edge of hydrogenated metals I am sure you won't find any deniers amongst them. But we don't know, because there is no poll and there is no journalist writing up an article discussing that. When/if the big enlightenment comes, suddenly, over night, the "old mainstream view scientists" will never have existed.
 * There are numerous renowned research institutions (ENEA, SRI, SPAWAR, NASA for some name dropping) investigating cold fusion/LENR and you don't hear any negative results from them. On the contrary ! As a matter of fact, you don't hear any negative scientific assessment on the phenomenon, because the ones propagating the debunking point of view are the ones who don't do any experiments, don't even investigate the evidence, a blatant perversion of scientific principle.
 * In wikipedia we must report the mainstream view as the majority viewpoint, but at the same time we should leave ample room for the evidence that propagates the non mainstream view AND we must take into consideration that the perceived mainstream view might not correspond with real mainstream view AND that the real mainstream view might be flawed by years of ridicule and contempt. A scientist will believe in those topics that his grant money wants him to believe in. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Classic rhetoric: much heat and little light. The claim is "we don't know what the 'mainstream view' is", "scientists don't know, so they can't comment on cold fusion", "if anyone is engaging in debunking, they are crazy". etc. etc. etc. It should be a general rule that people who make these kinds of arguments supporting the fringe and pathological science flavor-of-the-month ought to be shown the door as this kind of attitude is inimical to the way an independent expert would write an article on these subjects. Incredulity is the essence of WP:NPOV when it comes to WP:FRINGE in spite of the attempts to move the Overton Window. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POVbrigand, Wikipedia doesn't change the rules to make an exception for cold fusion. The mainstream view stays the mainstream view until great, slow, conservative forces acknowledge a new body of evidence as fact. We do not have to "leave ample room" for the possibility that the minor viewpoint might be proved right... that would be undue weight given to the minor view. Wikipedia by nature frequently gives the little guy a bigger voice than otherwise; there is no need to amplify this tendency for all articles related to the cold fusion topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, I am completely satisfied with the WP-policies as they currently are, because they are workable for this platform. They do have weaknesses, but that doesn't mean editors can start to make wild interpretations of them to suit their POV. And that counts for both sides of the divide, thus also for the name calling IP 128.59. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will bite. Your feeling is completely wrong. The only fanatics I have seen since I started editing cold fusion topics this year are the anti CF crowd, who appear to be driven by the sole motivation that any mention of cold fusion must be deleted from wikipedia. Maybe that anti CF editing behaviour was nurtured by some dubious actions from other editors in the past, but the Rossi spectacle has drawn in a fresh batch of sincere inquisitive WP-editors who are looking into the subject and apparently have come to the conclusion that the resentment and contempt which is so loudly propagated by the anti CF crowd is not in line with WP policies.
 * Surely, there is the occasional overenthusiastic editor pushing things a bit too far, but they are nowhere near the level of annoyance that the constant griefing of the anti-CF crowd causes in their pitiful quest of deleting any mention of cold fusion from wikipedia.
 * Go create your pristine-pedia somewhere else. And before you make anymore insinuations about my intentions, first log into your account and then attack me. It will look so much more credible that this anon IP drivel. -POVbrigand (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ho ho! High horse on the low road. It's the best combination! Isn't it exciting that NASA is endorsing cold fusion? Isn't it? Spare me the histrionics. The fact of the matter is that you are a cold fusion fan, you are not this middle-ground person trying to claim some sort of "balanced approach". So either your deluded into thinking that you have no bias or your lying about your motivations. Either way, you are the problematic one and attacking me is not a very good deflection tactic. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it coming. Your comments are clearly showing your own motivation, which evidently isn't middle-ground. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Middle-ground" between the ignored and the ignorers on Wikipedia is, essentially, to the exclusion of the ignored. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. (I know, I know, you're convinced that cold fusion/LENR/CANR/perpetual motion is not "FRINGE" but you've been spectacularly unsuccessful in convincing anyone outside of your own little group of cold fusion compatriots of this.) Good luck with your continued activism. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only appropriate way to report this story is to report the facts as they are taken from reliable sources. An accounting of the mainstream viewpoint also certainly should be given. I do not think it is appropriate to give the mainstream POV more weight just because it is the majority opinion.  That is akin to saying the truth is determined by mob rule, regardless of any facts that may be contrary to it. That notion violates the spirit and mission of Wikipedia, or any reliable reference for that matter.  In that same regard, the opinion of Robert Park should not be given more weight than that of Dr. George Miley or Dr. Dennis Cravens just because Parks views were more widely reported and better-known by means of a popular book.  Parks views are not based on a first-hand examination of the device, while the views of Miley and Cravens are. Again, this story should be based on factual evidence not popular opinion, although the majority opinion obviously needs to be given.  It IS indeed then up to the reader to make their own decision on how to process the information given and what conclusions to draw.  Pushing of any POV, majority or not, is inappropriate.Badhillbili (talk)
 * You guys are simply classic fringe POV-pushers. Keep up this activism and you'll find yourself topic banned. It's all throughout the archives that this is your fate. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody called you a troll (noun, pejorative). The implication was that your behavior resembled trolling (adjective), which describes a well-defined set of behaviors often seen in Internet forums, user-groups, blogs and the like. The behavior is defined by frequent off-topic comments, prolific posting and inflammatory statements.  Those behaviors are seen in your posts on this topic and it is why you were called on it.  Those behaviors are neither appropriate for this forum or from someone using an IP from an esteemed institution like Columbia University.Badhillbili (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badhillbili (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Distinction without a difference. You can try to continue your character assassination, but I stand by my critique and notice that your account has all the glorious features of a WP:SPA. Hmm. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Troll (Internet)"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."  (BTW, is Wiki considered a RS? Is it accepted in the mainstream as such? If not, please forgive me for citing it here).  Even though troll as used in this context is not necessarily a pejorative and its use would be appropriate to describe your behavior here, the term was not used to apply to you.  The term used was "trolling," with the implication being that your behavior RESEMBLED activity that an Internet troll would engage in.  End of story.  It is up for the rest of the community to decide for themselves if your remarks here are appropriate.Badhillbili (talk)
 * End of story? Okay. I wonder which banned user you are, or, at least, at which cold fusion forum you read about this discussion. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think it's low-notability, but low notability is not the only reason why articles get deleted; it's simply the most common one. A more pressing concern is that any article on this topic will be, by definition, a magnet for fringe beliefs, OR, and synthesis. With the more well-known conspiracy theory articles &c we have enough watchers; but with the really obscure topics it can be impossible to maintain encyclopædic quality. bobrayner (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying something is a magnet for OR is not a reason for deletion. Silver  seren C 04:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history this article has not been a magnet for any of those. To me it seems Bobrayner is expressing unsubstantiated fears. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that quality was an issue at the last AfD and it still seems to be an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is way better than last year's version. What aspect of it do you think is still an issue ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history over the last week alone you will see a number of very dubius additions being attempted (and usaully removed again). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I added a reliable source (Bart Simon) to the article. His book contains many additional facts about the PPC that might be worked into the article. Please take a look at it. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An additional reliable source should be available very soon. NASA's Dennis Bushnell gave a slide show at NASA Glenn Research Center on September 22. It is reported a slide used in the presentation stated: "The many Rossi demonstrations in 2011 suggest LENR may produce"useful" quantities of heat [up to 15KWs ?]. Watts-to-Kilowatts also produced in Piantelli and Patterson Experiments." . Admittedly currently this information does not come from a RS so it cannot be used yet.  However, at the NASA Glenn Research Center site, at the bottom on the page, it says "Download presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon]. . I do not know what "soon" in NASA language means exactly but since the presentation was given in September one could reasonably expect that it will not be long.  The presentation would allow additional RS for this article should it survive the current process.  The holding of the workshop itself, as well additional statements on said web site (right above the previous statement cited), do give credence to LENR in general and I think it reasonable to consider the PPC in that light.Badhillbili (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) have been taboo science for 22 years, since Pons and Fleischman. Currently several groups are offering a variety of devices as functioning, verifiable LENR phenomenon. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to provide an open, honest source if important information, not subject to censorship, or special interest management. Currently a very active worldwide debate regarding the credibility of LENR is underway, and these efforts to delete the article are consistent with other efforts to stifle acurate historical knowledge of LENR history. To delete it at this point in time would appear to serve the purpose of those wishing to destroy relevant historical information, and that would damage the impartial image Wikipedia cultivates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.184.243 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've read some of the biased comments here and I'm shocked.  Some obviously don't realize the intended purpose of this online repository.  The information contained in this article is an historical fact - not necessarily the truth, but nonetheless, a fact.  There was a person/company/thing that performed some action.  The burden of proving the validity of the claims made by these individuals is not to be determined in this forum.  This forum exists to disseminate information - nothing more.  To erase this article is a blatant attempt to erase the information contained in it, and thereby stifle the ongoing debate over Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), cold fusion, or whatever applicable term.  Perhaps the claims regarding LENR are false, and if so, then an addendum can be added to this article stating such. Ewarf (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with the above poster.  The information contained in this article is an historical fact - not necessarily the truth, but nonetheless, a fact.  There was a person/company/thing that performed some action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.47 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

keep as cold fusion has promise as professors like George Miley, ahern have shown it to work...People that don't even want a article about it are trying to hide the realities of it. Wikipedia should be about telling about things and there history. Who knows people like Rossi maybe true. Unless you have something to hide of course, which wouldn't suprise me. """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthurricane (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps a case of pathological science, and I'm not holding my breath for it to ever be an energy source, but it had mainstream media coverage in the 1990s and satisfies WP:N, since notability is not temporary. Edison (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.--Salix (talk): 01:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I apparently never added a vote. The sources appear to be significant enough to prove this article subject notable, especially considering the sources that were found during the course of this AfD. A number of the delete votes up above seem to be taking a "fringe is bad, thus non-notable" or "it doesn't work, thus non-notable", neither of which are proper reasons for deletion. Silver  seren C 20:23, 3 December 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.