Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer

Energy Catalyzer

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)

Keep. Afd not justified. There is no pseudoscience involved AND media coverage is quite respectable.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator The article says hydrogen atoms mutate nickel into copper by what appears to be chemical means. If someone posted an article about spinning flax into gold, we'd shoot it down unless it was clearly labelled fairy tales. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this story is developing along the same line as every free-energy scammer of the last 1000 years. As another example of overheated claims that would overturn what we know of science, it's not particularly notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator The first edit by that IP address is above. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Afd not justified. The nominator uses his personal OR to argue this Afd. Media coverage is substantial. The nominator appears to be clueless on the topic. Media coverage (section got deleted for dubious reasons) and much more media has reported on the latest demonstrations. Wired, Forbes ... --POVbrigand (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Although the science seems dodgy to say the least, media coverage is plentiful. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, or contravenes the laws of physics. The article could do with a cleanup and may be a little on the long side, but the tone seems neutral to me. I think an overhaul would be preferable to a deletion. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator Every time a starlet goes out without panties there's a lot of coverage, too. But it's not significant to the encyclopedia. Non-trivial coverage makes for notability. Major discoveries in physics aren't announced on Fox News and there's no indication this scam is any more notable than any other free-energy scam. Has this one bilked more people out of money than the average energy scam yet? How is this particular scam encyclopedia-worthy? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominator is merely ranting, not a serious Afd --POVbrigand (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Most people here seem to be in agreement that this is not a 'major discovery in physics', and not even scientifically feasible. Still, the comparison to a starlet's panties is contrived, as the same reasoning could be applied to anything that's ever been on the news. The article needs work, but the subject itself is valid, as it has received much more coverage than most other crank theories. 109a152a8a146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

• Keep This development has plenty of news coverage. The science has not been established. The evidence points in the direction that it is not a hoax. Even if it is a hoax, it needs an article to give the up-to-date status. Therefore, keep. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator WP:NOTNEWS - this isn't the place to publish original research. It's a hoax because you can't change nickel to copper by rubbing it with a bit of Crisco, no matter how many journalism students have attended your press conference. The coverage doesn't show that this scam is any more significant than the last scam. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominator is using one fallacy after the other --POVbrigand (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Who can transmute elements by dipping them in a beaker? We know the patter line is a hoax, so the only question of notability is if this hoaxer is somewhat more significant than the average peddler of free-energy scams. The coverage doesn't compare this one to others. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing in the nomination really stands up. We do cover scams and nonsense science. Anything else is a question of WP:NPOV and editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Ah, but it is presented as science fact rather than science nonsense in this spammy article. Such earthshaking claims of using chemical reactions to transmute elements need sound coverage in peer-reviewed scientific journals and science textbooks from respected publishers. Tabloids and sensationalistic TV news channels are not reliable sources for claims of breakthroughs in physics or chemistry. Plainly contradicted by chemistry textbooks. Edison (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

respected publisher American_Chemical_Society: ISBN 978-0-841-22454-4 ; ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Media coverage is sufficient for the subject to worth a topic in Wikipedia no matter if it turns out to be a Ponzi scam, fairy tale or world-overturning energetic revolution. There is no rule Wikipedia cannot have articles on scam topics — instead, as long as a particular one becomes a topic of wide interest, it would be a miss not to have an article on it. Honeyman (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I have suggested in the past that this article be deleted, but it seems to me that this nomination is flawed. It isn't up to Wikipedia to assert that this is a scam, even when faced with such clear indications that it may well be. And nor is it our job to declare that it is 'scientifically impossible' - we would need to find a source that said that about Rossi's magic teapot 'E-Cat' itself. No, the question should be is it possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this? There are a few sources that seem to meet WP:RS criteria, most notably Ny Teknik - though reliance on a single source is always problematic, and they seem on occasion to have overstepped the line between journalism and 'scientific testing', while clearly unqualified for the latter. If one bases an article on reliable sources, all that can really be said is that Rossi keeps producing devices, and in convincing people that they produce excess heat. There is no 'science' to speak of, as Rossi refuses to divulge sufficient information to test its validity. There appear to be two types of 'customer' reported - ones who cancel their contract, and ones who may well not exist at all, as far as we have any verifiable evidence. Almost everything else is hype, speculation, and crystal-ball-gazing. It may be possible to write an article about the E-Cat one day, but for now there simply isn't enough material for anything other than a recounting of Rossi's claims, and a repetitive description of each 'demonstration' - though if we exclude the 'results' on the basis that this isn't peer-reviewed science (as would be necessary to support such extraordinary claims), all we have on that is a date, a list of attendees, and a description of whatever Rossi's plumber Rossi has constructed that week. On this basis, I am inclined to suggest that the article be deleted, as covering a subject that cannot be sourced sufficiently well to produce an encyclopaedic article. Of course, after Rossi gets his Nobel Prize, his spell behind bars, or whatever the outcome is, someone may be able to piece together enough evidence to make an article possible - which is to say, someone can provide us with a reliable source that actually tells us what is in the teapot E-Cat, and whether it is producing excess heat or excess gullibility. For now, the best article on the E-Cat would probably be the shortest: "E-Cat: see unicorn". Unless someone can convince me otherwise, by explaining how an encyclopedia can describe a device of unknown construction that may or may not do something significant, I'm inclined to argue for deletion - though not on the grounds of the proposer. Meanwhile, can I ask that those taking part in this AfD take time to look at the article, with a view to making it at least a little less full of speculation, hype, and wishful thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"how an encyclopedia can describe a device of unknown construction that may or may not do something significant,"

By saying that it's of unknown construction and unknown efficacy. If that's all we can say, then that's all we should say. Seriously - it's longer than "see unicorn", but a one-para article might well be appropriate. This is still different from deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you write such an article (in say your user space), and if this AfD closes as 'keep', propose that it replaces the existing one? That would clearly be a worthwhile exercise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Cold fusion by another name. I have no objection to Wikipedia having articles on pseudoscience topics but this one fails to identify it as such. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC).
• Merge to cold fusion. I especially like the way they say, "it's not CF, it's LENR"— which redirects to CF. The article is heavily padded with primary sources, and when the dust settles it may well mark the point at which CF moved from bad science to scam; other than that the notability of this is going to be low. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I fully endorse the concerns raised about the quality of sourcing and the painfully credulous point of view espoused by the article's dominant editors. I have noted previously on the article's talk page that the style of our article would be more appropriate to a blog – where every new press release or snippet of trivial coverage is breathlessly reported in a new section, and where every dog-and-pony 'demonstration' is treated as fact – than to an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there are enough 'true believers' who are watching the article to prevent and revert the sort of aggressive pruning that would be required to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards. We're in the awkward position of having an article that is too poor to be retained as it stands (and which can't by any practical method be fixed), on a topic that may just barely squeak through some sort of objective test of 'notability' as a social – not scientific – phenomenon (and so can't easily be deleted). Mangoe's merge suggestion has merit, as there really aren't very many good sources on this topic, and the serious-bordering-on-irreparable problems of WP:WEIGHT could be diluted if not ameliorated by putting a limited, appropriate amount of material into a suitable parent article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Basically if we merge it with Cold Fusion we heavily mix a scientific matter of study with a device, and this seems not quite appropriate to me. About notability: Forbes wrote a series of articles about it (the most recent: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/ ), Wired wrote a series of articles about it (the most recent: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success ) hence sources are very popular magazines indeed. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)