Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicatalysis


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Epicatalysis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There don't appear to be any articles discussing this term that are independent of Sheehan, who coined it (and, judging from behavioural evidence, likely wrote this article). Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not appear to have been discussed in any substantial depth by anyone other than its originator. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The word does exist and get hits when searched but some seem to be talking about other things entirely. The only Google News hit is something about RNA, which is clearly something very different. The Google Books hits are a little better: This is on topic and not written by Sheehan. It also throws up quite a lot of other books that are plausibly on topic but none of the first few find anything if you search inside the book for "Epicatalysis". Google Scholar shows a few people citing Sheehan and talking about his idea of Epicatalysis. There is this, written by people from ThermaWatts LLC (a company seeking to develop a product related to this idea) and published by MDPI (which has an interesting article). They say in their conclusion "Epicatalysis created a harvestable temperature difference. That, alone, is enough to prove we must move past laws". I am not sure if the laws they are so casually "moving past" are those of Thermodynamics but it doesn't sound good. Anyway, the total is only 15 hits in Google Scholar. That is not impressive. Even worse, one of those 15 looks like a hit in nature.com (encouraging) but is actually just somebody talking about Wikipedia's coverage in the comments (rather less encouraging). I get the distinct impression that this is fringe stuff. If it isn't then we will be hearing a lot more about it. I'm not holding my breath. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2018 (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.