Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer: Difference between revisions
Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) nominate for deletion |
→Energy Catalyzer: WP:I don′t like it Afd proposal |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:({{Find sources|Energy Catalyzer}}) |
:({{Find sources|Energy Catalyzer}}) |
||
Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got [[Cold fusion| the whole university backing you]]. [[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got [[Cold fusion| the whole university backing you]]. [[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
Afd not justified. This is not a free energy scam or pseudoscience(it has not been proved to be a scam or pseudoscience). It seems like a tendentious Afd proposal made by someone who doesn′t like the subject of the article.--[[Special:Contributions/86.125.176.31|86.125.176.31]] ([[User talk:86.125.176.31|talk]]) 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:23, 30 October 2011
- Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got the whole university backing you. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Afd not justified. This is not a free energy scam or pseudoscience(it has not been proved to be a scam or pseudoscience). It seems like a tendentious Afd proposal made by someone who doesn′t like the subject of the article.--86.125.176.31 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)