Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold fusion controversy


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cold fusion controversy
This started as a POV-fork and ended as a mess. Whereas some editors may be tempted to keep this just as junkyard to keep the main article Cold fusion free from the worst stuff, it would be more honest to delete the fork. --Pjacobi 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as an irreparable mess. When (if) the Cold fusion article itself gets put into a decent state, that will be the appropriate time to consider branching off sub-articles on various details.  Anville 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, I've been familiar with the article for a long time and believe it's better off dead. It's filled up with original research, PoV, lunatic fringe, and sniping comments. Outside of the garbage, there nothing there. Jefffire 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the above (and Jefffire, who just gave me an edit conflict). "In most of these arguments, a brief statement of a skeptic or skeptics is presented and then followed by a counter-argument in favor of cold fusion."???? This isn't what an encyclopaedia is for! Byrgenwulf 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This won't necessarily improve the maintainability of cold fusion, but in an ideal world this article wouldn't exist and the relevant info would be in the main article.  We might as well bring the world one small step closer to being ideal. -- SCZenz 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and what Anville said above... Some day I can imagine a revised Cold Fusion article, fully protected and with all changes requiring a vote.  It may be that some controversial topics can't be handled otherwise. EdJohnston 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - This POV-fork is unnecessary. Doubtful that anyone will search for this particular title of an article before looking for cold fusion as a first go. --ScienceApologist 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, agree with all above. –MT 00:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, egregious POV-fork. –Joke 02:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; slanted and unnececessary. Cardamon 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. A sad read. Such slanted articles ought to be kept off WP. --D e lta Tango | Talk 00:01, 7 October 2006 (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.