Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleischmann-Pons experiment


 * 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; redirect if appropriate. slakr \ talk / 11:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fleischmann-Pons experiment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Restorer ignored consensus to not restore this article in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_44#split_.22Pons_and_Fleischmann.22_from_main_article Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Cold fusion. Perhaps a spinoff might be appropriate someday, but "someday is not today...."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cold fusion. The creation of this article was already discussed and rejected, and I think the old reasons still hold. I'll add new reasons:
 * Article was copy/pasted a few years ago from Cold fusion.
 * I gave the IP a couple of weeks to improve the article. So far he has only made minor edits, all subtle pushes in the direction of a POV fork.
 * The scope is not well chosen, and it will cause many maintenance problems. I gave my reasons in Talk:Cold_fusion.
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect, to restore status quo ante. This 'article' is a straight copy-paste from cold fusion with trivial modifications; it represents a needless duplication of content that, if it is maintained at all, will mostly serve to attract POV pushers trying to create and perpetuate a sympathetic POV fork.  (That's not just idle, bad-faith speculation; there's a reason why pseudosciences in general, and cold fusion specifically, are covered by ArbCom-issued discretionary sanctions.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lede makes it clear that this is considered to be pathological science. Article gives greater details of the experiment and so greater scope to determine what went wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
 * (it gives the exact same details as Cold fusion, because it was copy/pasted from there). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to Cold fusion. Topic is covered at the original title, no convincing reason has been given to fork this. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to cold fusion without prejudice to forking it back out if consensus can be reached.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's always the case that if there's a consensus in the future for creating the article based on new information, the article can be re-created, and the Afd can be re-considered. But if someone has an argument why, based on current information, the article should exist, now is the time to state your argument. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:POVFORK of cold fusion. That is, a fully developed Fleischmann-Pons experiment article will be the cold fusion article (i.e the experiment and aftermath). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect. I don't see why it needs to be a separate article. It's true that the article on cold fusion is pretty long (~130KB), but the P-F experiment is mostly what CF is about, so it makes little sense to fork or spin off a core part of that article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason the article appears so long is because the references are huge. As far as article lengths go, it's a moderate size. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. As a largely copy-pasted, it creates a classical WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the living crap out of it. It’s an obvious WP:POVFORK.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2014 (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.