Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science


 * 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. Rough consensus is that none of the available sources serve to sufficiently establish notability. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to fail WP:ORG. Known in the fringe circles the professional organization to which cold fusion researchers belong, but due to the general ignoring by secondary and independent sources of this field in general, this organization does not have the requisite independent notice we require at Wikipedia for organizations. See the related deletion discussion for this society's secretary. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems a rather blatant attempt to discredit serious research and science, just because it is in an unpopular (untrendy) area. If this work is not considered scientific, are you going to delete all the articles about religions, too?


 * What exactly is the point in deleting the page in any case? The page is a useful starting point. quota (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike most notable religions, there are no independent sources which discuss this group. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some sources that show notability for the subject. Silver  seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've done no such thing. You've added a number of external links to cold fusion advocacy websites. How does this establish independent notability? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While the whole cold fusion area seems to have the scientific merit usually found in perpetual motion research, the subject of this article has received enough coverage and has been cited several times in scientific publications as a main resource for research in this area (by sources including the Wiley Encyclopedia of Energy and Springer). The society also sponsors an international conference in Condensed Matter Nuclear Sciences. Fleischmann and Pons have a lot to answer for, but this organization appears to be notable.--Michig (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Michig, what are the exact Springer & wiley mentions? Do they refer to the organization, or are they refs to papers presented at their conferences?  DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Springer one is from the Journal of Fusion Energy - I can't access the whole paper unfortunately. I also found this from a researcher at Osaka University. The Wiley one is here - a sample of a publication from [John Wiley & Sons].--Michig (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked all these papers. All of them refer to papers presented at their conference and NOT the organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the Wiley one includes in a list of resources: "The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field.", and the Takahashi one includes "The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field." Not significant coverage, I agree, and likely based on the same 'official' description of the society. --Michig (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Takahashi, an ardent cold fusion proponent, as a way to establish the encyclopedic nature of this organization does not seem to be on the up-and-up to me. The Encyclopedia of Energy is essentially a glorified Citizendium that was singled out by the cold fusion community to be used as a propaganda piece for their advocacy. (You'll note that the only nuclear power entries for the encyclopedia to be reserved are those associated with cold fusion.) So, sure, if you let a cold fusion advocate wax eloquent in your encyclopedia about cold fusion, they'll probably get around to mentioning this particular organization. How does this make the subject encyclopedic or reliably sourced from our end? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral the organization may (in some circles) be notorious rather than famous, but 'notorious' is notable, no? OTOH, the article as stands doesn't really seem to me to have much useful information.David V Houston (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Masquerading as a valid scientific organization. In-universe coverage from cold fusion fringe proponents does not show notability, and the independent coverage can essentially be summed up by appending "a society of cold fusion proponents" as appropriate where the Society is mentioned elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The members of the society seem to be perfectly respectable scientists, almost all from well-known scientific institutions, and their publications are peer-reviewed. Most have nothing to do with 'cold fusion'.  No masquerade seems evident, and the organization is properly constituted.  I agree the article could use some fleshing out. quota (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That they "seem" to you to be one way or another is irrelevant. All have something to do with cold fusion. I'm not even sure how you are coming to this judgment. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear they all have some interest in the field that the organization covers, and the field includes topics similar to 'cold fusion'. But looking at the publications of some of the members shows that they have much wider interests, and not primarily in 'cold fusion'.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.  As to their respectability, they are members of respected institutions, including MIT, SRI, GSU, ENEA, etc.   So the organization is established, scientific, runs and organizes conferences, helps publish papers, and is undoubtably the focus for research in its field.  All of the above make it notable.  (Why delete the article anyway?  To save a few bytes of storage?)  quota (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The field does not just "include" cold fusion. The field is cold fusion. The cold fusion community renamed their subject Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) to avoid the stigma of "cold fusion". That the society has members who are active at prestigious institutions is irrelevant to their notability and relevance for Wikipedia. A number of people I know at prestigious institutions are members of a wide range of organizations -- many of which are not encyclopedic. The membership of the organization, unless noted by third-party independent sources as being notable is irrelevant to our discussion here. The rationale behind deleting this article is simply that it is impossible to write a neutral and source-based article since the only sources that are extant which discuss the society are primary sources supporting the goals and aims of the society. No independent notice means that an organization necessarily fails our notability guideline. Please read WP:ORG for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Scientific publications that mention these sorts of things mention this. Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD.  Credible news organizations do speak of this organization, so its notable.   D r e a m Focus  23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ZPEnergy is not a "credible news organization". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This is a fringe organization and the only sources I've been able to find for them is ZPEnergy, which seems to be a news portal that is currently seeking corespondents from its discussion groups. No way does that pass the RS smell test. Most other references to the group appear to be made by members of the group. AniMate  01:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete ZP energy is not a credible source. it does not have wide multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I reviewed all the sources, and there are none which establish notability. Apparently there is not even a mention in anything approaching a reliable source per the WP standsrds.  I am not making any judgment about the reality-bais of sites such as www.zpenergy.com, I'm merely saying that such mentions on a cold fusion website, and mentions like the brief note here cannot give us the remotest possibility of writing an NPOV article. Becritical (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- after checking all the sources in the article and having a bit of a poke around on Google, I agree entirely with Becritical's analysis. Reyk  YO!  23:33, 16 April 2010 (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.