Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widom–Larsen theory


 * 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 no consensus. I don't see a clear consensus on whether the sources are sufficiently independent and significant enough to meet WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Widom–Larsen theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:FRINGE theory that has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required to justify inclusion as a stand-alone article. Cold fusion true believers tend to think this is serious science but it has not received the marquee notice that we would expect for such an amazing breakthrough. WP:CBALL means that Wikipedia's promotion of this harebrained scheme is not warranted and it is exactly why we have WP:FRINGE in the first place. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep for now. It's fringe yes, but the main paper has about 46 citations (EJPC site) to 109 (Google Scholar). This isn't nothing. Might revisit later. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the full list from Web of Science that Springer uses, but the crossref citations are not particularly remarkable: . Note that there is a lot of churn and self-citation within the walled garden of cold fusion believers. They still put on conferences and seem to write a review article about the amazing new opportunities in cold fusion about every five minutes or so. The key here is that essentially no independent notice (from those who aren't in the cold fusion orbit) is found. jps (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Citations don't count for notability. Citations that come from papers in Physica Scripta or unpublished count even less. This was a stupid idea when it was proposed, and now, 16 years later, it's clear it went nowhere. Tercer (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fringe or not, there is adequate coverage of the theory in multiple third-party sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE, and it is entirely okay to discuss fringe theories in articles exclusively about the fringe theory (whereas mention may be undue in other articles). Coverage includes: --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * These are sources written mostly by cold fusion advocates. This does not indicate broad coverage that we look for according to WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we prohibit articles on beetles written by beetle enthusiasts or entomology advocates? Nothing in WP:FRINGE nor Independent sources prohibits content written by people with specialized knowledge on a fringe subject. Why are editors afraid of the bare existence fringe topics, even when they can be labeled as fringe? Describing a fringe theory or even a discredited theory is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * only when you have enough reliable sources that cover it critically to achieve a non-fringe article (it seems that here at least some people have discussed it). But notability is also another matter, independently (with the Beetles obviously universally notable)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, I just added a New Scientist article that discusses it in context with other theories. Exactly how many of these sources will satisfy you? ::::::--Animalparty! (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And are you asserting that the goal is to "achieve a non-fringe article"? What does this mean? Per the holy writ of WP:FRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, doesn't mean that it should be removed, but means that it should be described as not accepted by most experts (sources are needed for this of course). I think this is achieved already with this article despite the few sources.  The remaining issue and main argument here appears to be notability, an important criterion to determine if an article should be in the encyclopedia (quote: ).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These are sources written mostly by cold fusion advocates. This does not indicate broad coverage that we look for according to WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we prohibit articles on beetles written by beetle enthusiasts or entomology advocates? Nothing in WP:FRINGE nor Independent sources prohibits content written by people with specialized knowledge on a fringe subject. Why are editors afraid of the bare existence fringe topics, even when they can be labeled as fringe? Describing a fringe theory or even a discredited theory is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * only when you have enough reliable sources that cover it critically to achieve a non-fringe article (it seems that here at least some people have discussed it). But notability is also another matter, independently (with the Beetles obviously universally notable)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, I just added a New Scientist article that discusses it in context with other theories. Exactly how many of these sources will satisfy you? ::::::--Animalparty! (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And are you asserting that the goal is to "achieve a non-fringe article"? What does this mean? Per the holy writ of WP:FRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, doesn't mean that it should be removed, but means that it should be described as not accepted by most experts (sources are needed for this of course). I think this is achieved already with this article despite the few sources.  The remaining issue and main argument here appears to be notability, an important criterion to determine if an article should be in the encyclopedia (quote: ).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, doesn't mean that it should be removed, but means that it should be described as not accepted by most experts (sources are needed for this of course). I think this is achieved already with this article despite the few sources.  The remaining issue and main argument here appears to be notability, an important criterion to determine if an article should be in the encyclopedia (quote: ).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of that disucssion: Another idea was the work of Allan Widom, a theoretical physicist at Northeastern University in Boston, and Lewis Larsen, a theoretical physicist and now CEO of Lattice Energy, a company aiming to create a functioning LENR device. Widom-Larsen theory, as it is known, makes an interesting statement about cold fusion: it isn't fusion. Instead, the anomalous heat generation comes about because, when infused with deuterium and possibly other contaminants, a palladium surface generates a varying electromagnetic field that shifts electrons about, in turn releasing neutrons. These are absorbed by other nearby atoms, transmuting them and causing them to release gamma-ray photons that are absorbed by other electrons, which radiate the extra energy as heat. Joseph Zawodny at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia thinks the theory is a "rich concept" that could prove extremely fruitful. "LENR is only one of its applications," he says. It doesn't rely on new physics, and makes some very specific predictions -- not that those predictions have been properly tested yet. Zawodny made his own attempts, but they were "brief and low budget", he admits. The ongoing controversy surrounding Rossi's E-Cat has made getting funding for further experiments difficult, he says. Besides Zawodny's inconclusive results, Widom and Larsen have graphs that purport to show a match between their theoretical predictions and experimental observations of how quickly various transmutation products are created. But this isn't terribly convincing to critics, because it is "after-the-fact" fitting to data from controversial experiments carried out years ago. I do not see this as indicating enough independent coverage of the theory to warrant a standalone article. This could easily be inclued at the main cold fusion page in a sentence or two. jps (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, most people with a passing familiarity in nuclear physics who bothered to read the theory article from 15 years ago would find some discussion points absent. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0505026.pdf Eq. 31 in their paper] predicts beta radiation (and a LOT of it), but I see no one discussing that anywhere. Novel theories that gain interest have their entire idea considered by others rather than ignored outright. That's the essence of the problem here. No one thinks it noteworthy enough to even make a passing mention of its details. jps (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, are we really taking New Scientist as a reliable source about anything on the fringes of physics? Really? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability does not imply endorsement. Something can be complete bunk and yet notable for receiving coverage from reliable, independent sources. New Scientist has been deemed a reliable source as per WP:RSP, and per WP:NFRINGE the coverage there is independent, substantial and not of a "silly news" nature. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You consider that treatment above "substantial" coverage? I'm a little concerned about that judgement call. I know some writers who have published in New Scientist. If I call them up and tell them about my latest paper and they put three paragraphs about it in their next article, will that mean we should have an article about that paper in Wikipedia? Maybe you're referring to other coverage as well. I will admit that there are certain cold fusion acolytes who have been fawning over this theory for more than a decade (Krivit, in particular, comes to mind), but considering the moribund state of the topic and the lack of mainstream interest in it beyond noting various scams, I am worried that we are pandering to the grift here by pretending that this is an article on par with any number of other articles we have about ostensibly scientific hypotheses that have been essentially ignored by the relevant community. jps (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An entire article would be "substantial"; I find it hard to argue that three short paragraphs are so. As for WP:RSP, it says to use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims. The fringes of science are contentious by nature, so caution is amply warranted here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between verifying the truth of a contentious claim and verifying the existence and notability of one. The fact that you might not approve of a topic covered by a reliable source does not nullify its coverage; if New Scientist's editors found your latest paper newsworthy, then would that most likely qualify as coverage in a reliable source as well. There is deliberately no minimum word count on "substantial," but clearly these are more than offhand mentions.
 * Once again, coverage is not endorsement, nor is it "pandering to the grift." We have articles on anti-vaxers, racist conspiracy theories, famous hoaxes, newsworthy scammers, etc., not because we approve of them, but because they have been deemed notable through substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources -- whether we like it or not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between having an article on a subject and mentioning a subject in related articles. I do not see that there is enough material to justify a standalone article and the reason we might not want such a thing is there simply are not enough critical sources that can provide context. This has nothing to do with liking or not liking a topic. This has to do with writing the actual article in a way that readers can get the full picture. The problem with three paragraphs in New Scientist is that while it hints at some of the issues with reception (or lack thereof) of this particular idea, it doesn't give us nearly enough information to write an entire article in proper context, and the remainder of the sources are rather too insulated within the walled garden to provide a means to write a neutral article on the subject. If you can see a way to write an article on this subject, it would be great if you would describe what it is including which sources should be used for which sections (or just work on the article yourself). As it is, I think you are arguing about a principle that cannot be backed up with actual practice and having spent a lot of time working on WP:FRINGE articles at this website, I see this as being a likely dead end. New sources are not forthcoming and by keeping problematic content like this at WP, we are acting more like an advertisement for what cold fusion WP:ADVOCATEs think the world should be paying attention to rather than what is actually being paid attention to in regards to the subject of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. I've argued to keep articles on pseudo/fringe science when the documentation existed to show that the topic was significant and that we could write about it in a reasonable way. (I worked to save Pseudomathematics during its AfD, for example.) The trouble in this case is that the documentation is either superficial, published in a venue that encourages sensationalism, or outright advocacy. If New Scientist found any paper of mine newsworthy, I'd resign myself to a surge of crank email, and I'd probably urge Wikipedia editors not to use their story for anything significant. That's never happened to me, but it has happened to physicists I know, so I'm pretty sure of how it would all play out. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Interest does not seem to have spread beyond the bubble of cold-fusion enthusiasts. Churnalism-level coverage in phys.org is what we expect for something unremarkable, not a sign of significance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources above are more than sufficient to pass the GNG. Many of the delete arguments strike me as lightly gussied-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the peer-reviewed journals with the subject or co-subject in the byline are self-published works. Other journal articles do not demonstrate significant coverage. Multi7001 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you mean the works that cite the paper? Of course, self-published works are not peer reviewed. jps (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I am not convinced that the sources given above are good enough for a contentious topic, they are mostly journalistic takes and these tend to sensationalize minority viewpoints and often have insufficient expertise to properly weigh the reliability of contestable claims; ergo, they are not good sources for WP:NPOV-challenged topics. I would be wary of using the US government-linked report, as I have no idea how much vetting they make. Headbomb's Google Scholar link has a moderate amount of papers citing the original paper, but most if not all of them are about articles that have similar extraordinary claims of low-energy nuclear reactions - feels like we are falling for a "walled garden" of advocacy sources, there. If this was a viewpoint with any degree of acceptance, I'd expect some mentions in very mainstream publications. And I am not sure that the amount of sources is a lot, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG per Animalparty. It's fringe but perfectly within the guidelines of Fringe theories. I second that the delete votes essentially boil down WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ... how? I don't think anybody has argued that the page should be deleted just because "it's annoying" or "the 'theory' is so wrong that having an article is shameful". The problem is that the "scientific" citations are coming from a walled garden of fringe enthusiasts, and the "news" sources are press releases (phys.org), superficial mentions in sensationalist venues (New Scientist), and the like. That's not the kind of coverage we need if we want to write an article that's compliant with WP:FRINGE. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I agree that Animalparty has provided evidence of coverage to establish WP:GNG. However, to provide better context for the claims, it might be preferable to merge it into an article such as weak interaction or cold fusion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 19 September 2021 (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.