Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piezonuclear fission


 * 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   redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Piezonuclear fission

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A recent fringe theory, which has no support in scientific community but enjoyed a brief interest in media in July, when apparently it was published. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the discussion originally started here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As an option, can be merged into Alberto Carpinteri, who appears to be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable, already mentioned briefly in AC's page. a13ean (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject already covered elsewhere. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the study on piezonuclear reactions is a branch of the scientific research, as you can clearly recognize by the publications regarding this matter on scientific journals like Physics Letters A (a partial list of scientific publications on this subject can be found here). There is a debate on the piezonuclear issue in the scientific community, but it is a 100% scientific debate constituted by scientific publications.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the fringe theory is mostly known for one event, the controversy surrounding the Italian National Institute of Metrological Research programme.-- xanchester  (t)  02:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be speculative/fringe material of little significance - about the most notable thing about it seems to be (per Nature ) that scientists got up a petition against government funding for research on the subject on the basis that it wasn't notable, or credible, or scientific - and per WP:NOTNEWS, that isn't a justification for an article either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is fringe at best.  Until someone BESIDES Carpinteri cites this work elsewhere it's not notable. PianoDan (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Until someone BESIDES Carpinteri cites this work elsewhere": there is no need to wait because there are studies and citations BESIDE Carpinteri, for example:
 * Fabio Cardone, Roberto Mignani, Andrea Petrucci (2009). Piezonucleardecay of thorium. Physics Letters A 373: 1956–1958
 * Ericsson, G., Pomp, S.; Sjöstrand, H.; Traneus, E. (2009). Piezonuclear reactions - do they exist?
 * Ericsson, G., Pomp, S.; Sjöstrand, H.; Traneus, E. (2009). Comment on “Piezonuclear decay of thorium”, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
 * L. Kowalski (2010). Comment on “Piezonuclear decay of thorium” - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, Physics Letters A 374: 696–697.
 * F.Cardone, R.Mignani, A.Petrucci (2009). Reply to the "Comment on 'Piezonuclear decay of thorium' - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956" - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 3795 by G. Ericsson et al
 * Ericsson, G., Pomp, S.; Sjöstrand, H.; Traneus, E. (2009). Comments on the "Reply to 'Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium" - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956' - Phys. Lett. A (2009, in press" - Phys. Lett. A (2009), in press, by F. Cardone et. al
 * Antonio Spallone, Odoardo Maria Calamai, Paolo Tripodi (2010). Remarks on “Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids”. Physics Letters A 374: 3957–3959
 * --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to READ a few of those links you posted - every one I opened links to a debunking of the original article. PianoDan (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is something different: it is a scientific debate.
 * One part are the scientists who support the studies on piezonuclear fission, and the other part are the scientists who do not support the studies on piezonuclear fission.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. One scientist saying something, and every other scientist saying, "No, that's obviously wrong" is not a debate.  And in this case, it doesn't even rise to the level of noteworthiness.PianoDan (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes really. As you can see, I did not report the work of Capinteri here, I reported only works from other scientist: some who support the studies on piezonuclear fission, other who do not support the studies on piezonuclear fission.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that Cardone, et. al. are in the same research group as Capinteri. PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See my answer (=Google scholar) below.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Xxanthippe's response to your answer. PianoDan (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BMUS, of course. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the GNG. Voting delete because "its wrong" doesn't make sense.  It got attention, so its a notable crackpot theory. See Flat Earth   Th e S te ve   02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But what would Andy say...? History2007 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a single refereed scientific source to verify this work. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Well, I made a quick research through google scholar, and it gave me more that 100 results:
 * http://scholar.google.it/scholar?start=90&q=piezonuclear&hl=it&as_sdt=0&as_ylo=1980&as_yhi=2012
 * The first is dated 1986:
 * http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/Metal%20Lattice%20Fusion.pdf
 * So it is more that 25 years since science takes the piezonuclear reactions into account.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These are all about cold fusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Also, being listed in google scholar is not in and of itself evidence of notability - most of the links on the front page of that search are to fringe science sites, not reputable journals. PianoDan (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. No evidence of notability to justify a separate article. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2012 (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.