Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 30

< 29 October	31 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Tone 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biotarian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User generated terminology Muleattack (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Hasn't gained any traction/notice to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Clarityfiend and nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doumbia Siaka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that he meet WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
week delete - Chances are he has played in the Tunisian Pro League, which would mean he meets WP:NSPORT, but at present, I cannot verify that he actually has. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he passes WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Villegas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable backup dancer/actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of susbstance. reddogsix (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to meet WP:PEOPLE. Lack of WP:RS revealed in Google search. Hurricanefan25 | talk 00:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per BLP violation with complete lack of verifiability, and quacking loudly of hoax. Despite the article's assertions, this person is NOT listed as cast in Gangster Squad, nor is there a chacter named "Michelle".[1] NOT listed in cast of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, nor is there a chacter called "bridesmaid".[2] NOT listed in cast of Easy A, nor is there a character called "gossip girl".[3] NOT listed in cast of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?.[4] Not listed in cast of Hannah Montana, nor is there a character named "standby girl".[5] NOT listed in cast of disCONNECTED, nor does the film have a "main" character named "Jennifer".[6][7] NOT listed in cast of That's So Raven.[8] Sourced back ONLY to Twitter and Tumblr pages, nothing in the article is verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Speedy Keep. Non good-faith nomination. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar Gaddafi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

he is very bad man and their should be no article he very bad and evil bad man BillyFromPeru (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close as a WP:POINT violation. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close There's not even a question about this man's notoriety, irregardless of personal feelings. Joefridayquaker (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he is bad man BillyFromPeru (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale added by implied request at DRV. The policy based delete arguments here surround a lack of an encyclopaedic scope with unsourced original research being added as a result as well as suggestions of SYNTH content. Deletion arguments were backed by reference to policy such as LSC and OR. The keep side mostly relied on assertion and failed to effectively rebut the deletion arguments and where they did refer to policy misinterpreted it - for example arguing that LSC isn't a reason for deletion negates the fact that it is a content guidelines with a clear inference is that content that doesn't meet the standard can be removed. If you did that here the whole list disappears, which = delete. In such a situation the solid policy based reasoning wins and the outcome is therefore to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English words with uncommon properties

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is inherently WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Its only inclusion criterion is directly contradicted in the second sentence for "interest" which also makes it inherently WP:TRIVIAl. A quick survey of what's included in this list is an arbitrary—almost random—list of words which could include or exclude tens of thousands of entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was previously nominated for deletion, albeit under a different name, here. Joefridayquaker (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very interesting and entertaining. However an encyclopedia is for more, how shall I say it?, factual information -- not someone's opinions (however erudite and clever). -Steve Dufour (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -

a list of words with unusual features is definitely encyclopedic. Also keep because it is the primary Article of the Category of the same name. Although there may be an element of OR in it, WP:COMMONSENSE tells us "Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:LSC. It doesn't even spell out the criteria except in the title. "Uncommon properties" is neither unambiguous nor objective. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—the subject of the list, as a grouping in itself, has an entire journal devoted to it: Word Ways. that ought to settle WP:LISTN for this list, which strikes me as the only guideline that's relevant to deletion of the article. whether or not it fails LSC is a matter for editing, not for deletion. the same is true for complaints about OR or SYNTH, and i agree that there is some of each in there. if the subject of the list is notable, then failures of those guidelines should be hashed out by editing the article, not by bringing it to afd. the same goes for complaints about the title of the article. fix it if you don't like it, but delete only articles about NN subjects.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of Word Ways. Word Ways is not listed as a reference in the article. That makes it seem like it's not a periodical that regularly publishes lists of crazy words, which is the only way I can see that it even arguably supports the article's appropriateness for inclusion. Second, even if Word Ways was a magazine that published, say, crazy words with lots of vowels one month and bizarro words with lots of consonants the next, that doesn't mean "english words with uncommon properties" is an appropriate list article for wikipedia. I don't think "unusual cat Halloween costumes" (with subtypes: pirate, supermodel, etc.) would be an appropriate list, but there may well be a regular feature in Cat Fancy about that.

Your second point is stronger — revise the article rather than delete it. But I see two problems with this. First, the overwhelming majority of this article is completely unreferenced. Is the shortest words with all six vowels (including y) ... oxygeusia as the article claims? Is tsktsks the longest word without any vowels? I have absolutely no idea. (I can't come up conflicting examples, but that's not the point.) So I don't know that it's feasible to (1) leave the article until references are provided or (2) expect that 90% of the article will be deleted. The second problem is that even if references were provided to substantiate all these things, that wouldn't change the fact that the list topic itself is inappropriately vague, boundless, and subjective.

Clearly, a lot of work went into this, and the article is interesting and kind of fun in a certain way. But I don't think it's an appropriate list. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 02:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, ok. the important point is that word ways publishes articles about kinds of "crazy words" rather than lists of them. if it published just lists of them, i think it'd be a primary source for our purposes. the point of it is that the fact that it publishes articles about kinds of "crazy words" is that the subject "crazy words" is notable as a list topic, since it's covered as a group in reliable sources, which is what listn requires. anyway, here is the latest table of contents of word ways so you can see roughly what i mean. the articles aren't available online right now, unfortunately. the fact that it's not a reference in the article now is irrelevant.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and shows many of the notable idiosyncrasies with the English language. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's (1) inherently subjective (2) impossible to complete (3) inherently trivial and (4) mostly unreferenced. What is and isn't an uncommon property? This list cannot be completed or subjected to any sort of rational limiting principle. I could think of another 30 possible categories for this list off the top of my head. But let's consult the talk page for some ideas:

Words that contain consecutive alphabets and nothing else ( obviously the alphabets' order is not preserved.)
"Words containing both Q and W"?
Words ending in -jun
Last word in dictionary
???

I certainly find this list interesting, and it seems like it might come in useful if you were playing Scrabble. But I don't believe it's encyclopedic because its entirely subjective and mostly unreferenced. AgnosticAphid talk 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I've worked on several lists like this and so I appreciate the arguments by LSC and I have a strong distaste for "unbounded lists". Nevertheless, when the topic is notable then I find that strict editing is the best solution in the end, not deletion. The examples in this article have been the subjects of numerous logological puzzles and challenges through the years. Many have appeared in print and in reliable sources. I consider this article to be the linguist's analog to mathematical puzzle - another rough list of recreational applications that have appeared in the RSes within the field of math. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TRIVIA. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split There is suitable content for a number of articles here. However, the overall subject has no common characteristic and cannot really be supported as an article topic. It would amount to either OR or total vagueness. Many or perhaps even all of the sections , as self-contained entities, would be another matter, DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to have problems with both WP:OR and WP:NOTE. I cannot find any sources, and none have been provided, which specifically mark these words as notable. Moreover, the properties chosen seem to be completely arbitrary - why is it that "Words with not vowels except w" is a notable property when any other property of words is not? There is no attempt to demonstrate what make a property 'uncommon'. For any of this article to be kept, each property would need a reference to demonstrate that the property is indeed uncommon and worthy of mention in Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. No objections to any redirects that users may wish to put in Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Shamrock (fighter)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's a non-notable MMA fighter with only 3 fights (1 win), none for a major promotion. His notability claim is being the son of a UFC Hall of Famer, but notability is not inherited.

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these MMA fighters meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BAMMA Featherweight Champion Alan Omer; Redirect UFC fighter Philip De Fries to UFC 138, and TUF competitor Cameron Dollar to The Ultimate Fighter: United States vs. United Kingdom; Delete all others on the grounds that they are not notable. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the fighters you want kept have any fights for a top tier promotion, much less the 3 stated in WP:MMANOT. Omer won the BAMMA title (second tier promotion) at BAMMA 2 and promptly lost it at BAMMA 3. Again, no fights for a top tier promotion. I am willing to keep the article on De Fries since he may soon meet the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but redirects are cheap. I see no reason why they wouldn't serve the same purpose as deletion in the two instances I mentioned. Omer isn't a major player, but since he has won a championship for arguably the largest organization in the UK, I am comfortable having a stub for him. I respect MMANOT, but see it as a guideline, not a rule. My primary interest in deleting articles is to knock out the least notable people from the bottom of the pile up. I'm willing to give people on the cusp a pass so long as there are still so many less notable people with pages. For instance, a person hired by Bellator with no top-tier fights wouldn't be notable according to the guideline, but could be within a matter of months if he is scheduled to compete in their tournament (and thus fight several times in quick succession). In an instance like that, I would like vote to redirect rather than delete. So, I generally consider each fighter on a case by case basis, which is what I've done here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the redirects and that there are hundreds of fighters that don't meet the criteria. I don't think Omer has shown he's notable or is on the verge, so we'll just have to disagree on him. I'd like to remove, at least temporarily, De Fries from the discussion so his article doesn't have to be recreated if he succeeds in the UFC. Can I just delete him from the above list and remove the link from his article? Papaursa (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the nominator, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to drop De Fries from the list. Particularly since he wasn't the one named in the primary nomination. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for which verifiable sources exist from Sherdog or MMAFighting, for example. Ryan Shamrock, at worst should redirect to his father's page in a section on personal life/family. There is certainly no pressing BLP need to delete the article altogether, however. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can verify they're all MMA fighters, but that's not the issue. The question is whether they're notable (see WP:MMANOT). Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bobby Emmons and give thru January 2012, I just don't want to have to remake his wiki page again after he fights for a top tier promotion to be considered "notable". 4 November 2011 at 11:53.

He has 3 fights (not all of them wins) for a local promotion in Indiana. Believing he'll be fighting for a top tier organization like UFC by January is both wishful thinking and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep De Fries, Redirect Dollar, Delete the rest None of these fighters currently meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT, but Dollar is mentioned in TUF article and De Fries is scheduled to start fighting in the UFC. Mdtemp (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip De Fries is currently signed to the UFC most recently fighting at UFC 138. There is no reason to delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsfc08 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple points:
- Keep De Fries. Per fight at 138. Per UFC contracts typically being at least two fights. It's easier to Keep now, and delete when he exits after two fights than to delete now, and recreate from ground up after he's in for 3 fights. (What's the likelihood someone's actually going to go for the undelete if we go that route?)
- Redirect Shamrock. Easy enough to put his info in father's article and say "Ryan is a pro fighter with an X-X record as of Date.(Ref-Sherdog)" or whatever.

That information is already there. Papaursa (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete all others per WP:MMANOT unless they can meet fighter criteria (1):
  - 1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations
--Policy Reformer(c) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Philip De Fries, he just won his UFC debut at UFC 138 and the UFC is the highest level of the sport. Entity of the Void (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (except De Fries) as failing WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alen Omer He was the BAMMA Featherweight Champion, which is a significant title. - Minowafan (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He won a vacant/new title of a second tier promotion at BAMMA 2 and lost it at BAMMA 3. That's not sufficient to meet [WP:MMANOT] and I see nothing else to support notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click referral cycle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced collection of definitions. This was a contested prod. →Σ τ c. 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the original prod proposer and per nom. No change to the article to change my opionion. noq (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has to do with advertising on the Internet: Life cycle of any click can be referred as Click referral cycle, Click referral cycle is mainly used in click measurement and filtration of invalid clicks in internet advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely un-referenced and unencyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Tonight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Unremarkable local cable program. Little significant coverage from independent reliable sources, outside the school newspaper. Google news search on "Elon Tonight" ESTV shows zero results. Standard search shows mainly primary sources, social media, and user-generated sites. Awards do not appear notable - they appear to be from organizations that give out hundreds to anyone who enters. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a university campus television show without signficant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources need to be independent, which these aren't. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica-Chan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion was declined because a statement was added to the article that this is "one of the largest Internet communities for Iranians". I can find no independent online sources in English to substantiate this, or anything else about the subject. It is possible that there are sources in Persian but I rather doubt it as this web site is written in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not stablished, unsourced, advert. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of notability. There are no sources cited. The only claim of significance is the completely unsourced statement that it "is one of the largest Internet communities for Iranians". This statement was added after the article was tagged for speedy deletion as making no claim of significance. The claim is implausible, as if it were so then there would certainly be plenty of references to it. Everything about the article suggests it has been written to promote the web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero evidence of notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources Stuartyeates (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. WP:RS is indeed a policy; WP:N is another. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspreet Singh (architect)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability. The-Pope (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check new references added to the arcticle which enhance the overall article. Gibbletow 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree the The-Pope – no significant coverage in independent RSs, so does not pass the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found relevant and verifiable reference and I have added it in the article at number 4 and 5 , please check ,also I am looking for the reference in the magazine. Gibbletow 05:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)— Gibbletow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ added a link to an article published in 2010 in an independednt reliable source to prove notability ,the article also mentions about architect's famous community projects ,see ref citation number 6 in the article before making any decision .
~~Keep~~ This article has been now enhanced with new verifiable references from reliable sources and also google search shown many hits for arcINOVATIONZ Gibbletow 12:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow (talk • contribs) — Gibbletow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment You can only vote once. Bgwhite (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nom. No reliable sources to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do not agree with Bgwhite ,there are reliable sources cited in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow (talk • contribs) 06:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable, massive ad which is poorly written. Also he pretended to burn himself for attention (what a idiot attention free advertising seeker - kill the page) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/indians-injuries-raise-questions/story-e6frg6nf-1225817870787 Ray-Rays 20:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- ~~Strongly disagree with speedy delete -wrong person reference~~
  - You've already stated that viewpoint several times. You've voted "keep" once, that's enough. Themanfromscene24 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment wrong person reference mr Ray-Ray , if people like you are editors on Wikipedia then I may start up somewhere else . Get your facts right have a read through citations , there is a picture of architect Jaspreet singh with Indian PM published in a magazine article and the guy who set himself ablaze is a student in Australia . So who is the idiot here I think everyone can understand . Gibbletow 23:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow (talk • contribs)

Delete Shameless self-promotion. Themanfromscene24 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP policy says you need to have a verifiable reference to a reliable source , I know its my first article but I have produced enough reference to satisfy the WP policies.

Its easy to say its spam and self promotion and bla bla without even going in depth of the article or finding who the person is .Gibbletow 10:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow (talk • contribs) <--Gibbletow 13:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)!--Autosigned by SineBot-->[reply]

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.

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 SPEEDY DELETE, hoax. postdlf (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pleasant

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All references turn up error pages, all internal links to his works point to this article. No mention of him on Google. There is a Michael Pleasant on imdb.com, but this seems so be a different person. Suspected hoax.

Delete as a hoax. Searching Google on his name combined with any of the shows mentioned turns up no results other than this page. Rather impressive amount of work for a hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I specially liked the touch that both "The Guardian" refs weren't to the newspaper but to an error message at Guardian Life Insurance! Ingenious touch. And the link to "The Daily Telegraph" isn't to the website of "The Telegraph" either, but to a dodgy 'Congratulations you have won...' site. And, yes, all the other links are duff in some way or other. Quite an elaborate hoax, must have taken them hours and hours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Tensemuscle9's other contributions are to just 4 other pages: Jim Kerr (rolled back politely, newbie not bitten), Ian Campbell (folk musician) (rolled back for vandalism), Gary Stevenson - looks like more FAKE LINKS there, ~~will need rolling back~~ (rolled back as hoax); and Paul Young (rolled back for vandalism). Oh dear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete—G3, if more opinions are even needed. hoax, but artful. none of the articles are real per newsbank, although it turns out that there is in fact an actor by this name active in community theatre in north carolina and still alive as of 2009. the links were nicely done, but they could have been done better. i won't say how in the spirit of wp:beans.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. A really lenghty discussion. But, a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell. However, the subject received extensive coverage, therefore an existence of this article is justified. All issues can be addressed by editing the article and not by deleting it. So, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage, not here. Editors are reminded that the editing and sourcing of this article requires special care, as outlined in a previous arbitration case on cold fusion. Tone 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Catalyzer

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(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)[reply]

Nowhere in the article does is the claim made that the nuclear changes are made via chemical effects. You repeat this false claim many times throughout this discussion and it is of no value to the discussion. Zedshort (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious misconception as to the Rossi technology. High pressures and elevated temperatures are used, not to mention the alleged catalyst. Diffusing into nickel is not enough.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are few 'conceptions', 'mis' or otherwise, involved. We simply have no reliable source whatsoever on what (if anything) the E-Cat contains, never mind how (if) it works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshymanski is obviously unqualified to make any of the above statements. All his claims are demonstrably false or completely nonsensical. It is glaringly obvious that he is completely out of his area of expertise.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to a fertilizer factory making ammonia by the ton; if nuclar reactions were ocurring at even 0.001% of the level that this scam supposedly makes, the plant would have been a radioactive wasteland. You cannot transmute elements by chemical means. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is very strong evidence that a 1MW system of this has been sold to a customer - see Fox news . [9] where several eye witness reports are quoted. This is a very strange time to delete this, just as a massive publicity campaign is starting around the launch of this technology. And it is a disgrace to think this is 'pseudo-science' as 2 well known physicists based at one of the oldest universities in the world (Bologna) are working on this. A colleague, who studied under Focardi, has confirmed his credentials to me, so I personally know this is no simple scam as implied by the afd campaign.--hughey (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is not based on junk science but on the works of Focardi et al. who published in "Il nuovo cimento", the most important Italian physics journal. See "Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems". Stengl (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Afd not justified. Wshymanski what you know about the energy catalyzer and cold fusion wouldn't fill the tiny amount of space between your ears. Why don't you go rub the two iq points you have together and see if you can start a fire like cavemen in the past. Stop wasting our time. Ldussan (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If the reason for deletion is that you believe the device is a scam, why not wait just another 3 months or 6 months to let it be proven a scam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.34 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Afd not justified. Forbes has 3 articles on it in last 15 days. It has made news for last 10 months in wash post, fox news also. As yet, nobody knows for sure, if its a scam or something real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.164.26 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reply by nominator. It claims to transmute elements by chemical processes. Every such claim is incorrect, either due to ignorance or fraud. ( Please cite a counterexample.) This fellow claims to have scientists working with him, so he's not ignorant. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

If the article says 'chemical means' that is an error that should be corrected. The energy created by chemical processes is insufficient by some orders of magnitude.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - I have already outed myself as single purpose, please note as per WP:SPA to have my comment given full weight regardless of any tag.[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Keep Afd not justified. Nominator merely asserts it's a scam with nothing to back this up. The likelihood of it being a scam has diminished with time.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

Not a major discovery in physics, agreed. The major discovery was that of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. This is a major advance in technology as previously the energies involved in LENR were very low in comparison.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources whatsoever that tell us anything useful about Rossi's 'technology', beyond his own unverifiable assertions. It cannot therefore possibly be a 'major' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Chemistry textbooks not relevant source, dealing purely with processes of a chemical nature and thus excluding many processes known to physics.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete, as violating key Wikipedia policies (WP:FRINGE, WP:NOT etc). 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looking at it more carefully, there is far more than one para that should survive anyway. The descriptions of the public tests are adequately sourced and illustrative of the device's obvious and evident behaviour, even if they don't go into much detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

Not pseudoscience. There are many papers on it in regular scientific journals.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying that cold fusion was a pseudoscience. There has been plenty of reliable experimental research done on that subject. All of the reproducible work shows that the effect does not exist (or, at least, such goes the consensus). My comment was directed the present article. However, in view of the widespread publicity that the subject has attracted, I think that a better approach to the article may that of Bhny below. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment. Basically if we merge it with Cold Fusion we heavily mix a scientific matter of study with a device, and this does not seem 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 the sources are very popular magazines indeed. --79.24.134.204 (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— 79.24.134.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Merging into cold fusion is not a good option, because the device is already mentioned there nicely concisely. ie merging would effectively mean deleting. As TenOfAllTrades already mentioned, the device is notable as a social phenomenon, not as a scientific one. I can count myself as one of the article's dominant editors (since a few weeks), but I cannot agree to having a credulous point of view. There is no scientific proof whatsoever how the Rossi device functions. Until we have, we must leave science out of the discussion and out of the article. I have already made proposals several times how we can come to a more concise version, but couldn't get a consensus mainly due to the deletionist party. My proposal for clear disclaimers [10] was reverted by AndyTheGrump [11]. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A properly-Written article shouldn't need 'disclaimers' - but my objection to that edit was that we don't need "not been independently verified" twice in the same paragraph. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may be a fraud, or a scam (note: personally, I think it is legitimate phenomenon, but incomplete science), but it is increasingly discussed, in increasingly mainstream media. (NyTeknik, Wired, Network World, Forbes, Italian network television (TG2)). The deletionist proposition is that the reaction can't be chemically-induced nuclear reactions, and is therefore junk science. It doesn't really matter what the actual reaction is: if it is a useful, economically viable device it is worth an article. SeanTrue (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If". See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. And no, 'junk science' is by no means the only argument for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:notcrystalball : "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This allows for this type of article. In addition your attempt to constrain things with very strict guides violates the idea that we have guidelines and the rules can be broken if done carefully. Zedshort (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then tell us the reasons why you think guidelines should be broken in this instance: 'because they can' isn't a justification for ignoring rules etc arrived at by consensus after considerable debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You again quote rules that aren't. We have guidelines and I need not give you reasons but only need be reasonable. Your reasoning is based on "I just don't believe it." You come across a highly authoritarian and seem to think by constantly referring to the WP guidelines you can silence others. I suspect you are one of those to whom Max Planck was referring. Zedshort (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant media coverage that definitely merits a serious article on Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 05:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Afd is definitely unnecessary at this stage. There's plenty of WP:RS, and increasing amounts of it. Call for deletion is malicious at best.Tmccc (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are certainly various problems with the article, but it clearly meets the GNG and so regardless of whether it really works or not, we should have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reading multiple popular press reports, I want to go to Wikipedia to see objective analysis and references. Of course, there's a high probability that it is a hoax, but I trust Wikipedia to have a great article for and against. I was especially interested in whatever's known about the science which is not well covered in popular media. I don't know where the article belongs, but Wikipedia does provide a needed service as a central objective source of information. FlintOBrien —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There is nothing whatever known about the science to include in the article, and until Rossi subjects his teapot to proper scientific analysis, there won't be. And no, we can't write an article 'for and against' something that we know nothing about, beyond its appearances at Rossi's staged 'demonstrations'. Everything else is hype, spin, and old-fashioned bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is known about the science is Einstein's famous law elucidating the relationship between mass and energy. What is happening within the e-cat is not violating that known law of physics. It is performing outside the realm of hot plasma fusion physics as it is very near room temperature and as a result does not produce the results that a hot plasma fusion physicist would expect. Known laws of physics are not being violated as the parameters of this system are very different. The only thing missing is an extension of the known laws and that by itself is reason enough to report on this device as it produces copious amounts of net heat and the phenomenon is easily conjured up and needs to be investigated and explained. Zedshort (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Been present at the oct6 testing of the device, I confirm a 100% certain that the average outflowing water was about 8-10°C warmer than the inflowing water on a 600l/h basis, and this for several hours. There were indeed some errors, but from a technical point of view (and having quadruple checked the thermometers after the test in the full range of the measured temperatures: they measured equal and within a precision range of 0,1 °C), all corrections that have to be made are in favor of the device. One simple item everyone can check on the pictures from NyTeknik (1 and 7): the thermometer on the inflow side was connected to the release-ring of the hose, so it did not make contact with a metal part that made contact with the flow, so basically it was influenced by environmental temperature. (28-29°C). There is not much variation of the tap water temperature in Italy, and the water measured 23,8 degrees before the test. The electricity that went into the device(s) was not measured very precisely, but I also confirm that other simple physical test proved 100% certain that the input power did not exceeded 2500 Watts, and in self sustaining mode there was indeed no significant energy consumption for almost four hours. No other electric cables were in use. Besides that, multiple disciplines of scientists were present, and observed their items, and also confirmed a successful evidence of controllable and stable nuclear reactions that were happening inside the reactor, by measuring.... . I cannot talk about that.

The amount of kettle stone that was formed, also on the nuts and bolt that closed the inner-core of the e-cat, proves that this same device had been used for longer periods before this test and without being opened in between.

In fact the effort of those that are trying to hide or deny the device, is near a criminal act against humanity. I believe Wikipedia cannot support such behavior. With a match and a trunk of a live oak, you can scientifically prove that wood cannot burn, and by doing so, sending whole populations to die from cold. In fact, lots of people even have difficulties igniting their BBQ and therefore they use all sorts of auxiliary materials to start a fire. E-cat is about auxiliary stuff to improve the efficiency. You can only deny a phenomenon if you have done all possible and thinkable effort to prove it exists and never have found even a glimpse of a positive result. The world is very far past the point of denial of effects happening in solid state metals. So the guys that did not try to observe nor explain nor reproduce the phenomenon with enough effort, even have no reason to speak at all. I recommend them to speak open and clear about their own business in which they are the real experts. More information about their work would be valuable too for Wikipedia. Almost every musician, painter or sportsman has his own place in wikipedia. Even fictional personages from comics and movies have their pages. And now the e-cat should be hidden as fast as possible ? --Kv1970 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)— Kv1970 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "Original research" is the term we use for this single purpose account's personal knowledge of the subject. Edison (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.88.234 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by nominator This is original research and not usable on Wikipedia. Why is it that every free-energy inventor can dream up great inventions that overturn all of physics, but refuses to buy a decent set of meters? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you know anything about the history of physics. This episode is very reminiscent of the invention of the electric motor, following Faraday's demonstration of mechanical motion derived from permanent magnets and electric currents. The actual theory of how this works by Maxwell did not appear for another 37 years after the first motor and 46 years after the demonstration of the phenomenon. And they had the advantage of not having their minds polluted by pathological skepticism. PS, I'm a physicist. Antimatter33 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the nominator that the last unsigned 'keep' nomination is based on original research and should be ignored. Whether or not the thing works is irrelevant to deciding if the article should be kept or not, unless it's verifiable. The decision should be based on notability, not personal opinion on the presence or absence of scientific merit. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that way, when the truth about all this is revealed, and it becomes clear that an article on a world-changing event was censored away by pathological skeptic fiat, the blatant editorial bias of Wikipedia and their complete lack of historical perspective will be revealed in all their tawdry shame. Antimatter33 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we all just calm down a little, stop accusing each other of ignorance/bias/delusion/closed-mindedness and stick to the sources? It's just an article. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(strong) Keep I don't even know why we're discussing this: everybody here knows that it's not our job to judge if the device is a scientific/engineering breakthrough or just a scam. All we need to consider is notability and (mainstream) media coverage. Both is clearly given. Which should be the end of the discussion, no? -- Minvogt (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps add: the style of the article is far from perfect; I agree with previous editors that it sounds too much like promotional material or a "free energy" blog, but deletion cannot be the solution to that problem. -- Minvogt (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(strong) Delete This is the definition of free energy, which is always a scam. The proposed method would rewrite more physics than the CERN FTL discovery, and this is not being handled in any way, shape or form like that is. It's a classic "secretive black box that does X" and this article is probably mostly marketing for it put up by individuals involved in said scam. Merge this to Cold Fusion, because that's exactly what the claim is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free meaning cheap, there is no claim of free energy with this. Why don't you try reading about it before you condemn it.Ldussan (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in setting this equal to perpetuum mobile. There are a number of explaining theories, that do in fact not re-write physics. Please read before you judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is WORSE than perpetual motion because those at least are just supposed to produce kinetics. This is a tabletop reaction that has an energy density several times that of nuclear reactors that itself is "probably nuclear" according to Rossi, but requires no external cooling and generates no radiation. Wikipedia should not be used to promote scams to the scientifically illiterate. If the article wants to be made balanced and mostly about the COVERAGE, that's a different story. There is no "there there" as far as the science goes, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(strong) Keep I agree with Minvogt that "it's not our job to judge if the device is a scientific/engineering breakthrough or just a scam". As notability and serious media coverage cannot be denied, there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. Croquant (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it's fun to watch an adventure that will likely put Rossi in jail again. PhGustaf (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that an argument for having an article on Rossi, rather than on his magic teapot? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See his page. PhGustaf (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. It certainly seems to be 'his', given that much of it is sourced to him. Rather contrary to what has been written about him in WP:RS, I'd have thought - though at least it notes his murky past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(strong) Keep What interest should the inventor Rossi have in a scam? Surely he is not good at providing confidence and he does not seem to be a good businessman, but that does not make it a scam. The article itself states that e-cat is work in progress, and logically proof of such a invention would be hard to provide. Wait until this topic matures and provides proof or scam become emergent.

Read WP:CRYSTALBALL - wait for the sources, then write the article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Your reasoning would be right, if that _actually_ would be scam. I am trying to find such a prove since half a year. So far there is no prove. This whole thing is also of such an importance for the future of mankind, that LENR developments should be quite well regarded in wikipedia. The number of signs there is something behind that was really adding up in the last years, even if E-Cat will finally not prove to be the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — 84.180.53.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your opinions on the validity of the E-Cat are irrelevant - we base articles on published reliable sources, and deletion discussions are based around whether such articles conform to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia actually has an entry about the heads of the Iraqi Information Ministers. This one has zero cited sources besides that one about the dissolution of that ministry. So, to a independent observer it much looks as if the source for those persons listed might have been the Information Ministry itself. Given this, I still would not opt for deletion of that entry, mind you. 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Empirical evidence for the validity of the ecat claims is abundant, while theoretical explanations conflict dramatically with the established scientific paradigm. If the article is rejected it implies that the only valid scientific knowledge must be consistent with generally accepted theories, which rules out any number of scientifically interesting areas such as the possibility of faster than light neutrinos, and at various points in history, plate tectonics, super conductivity and other areas which at the time of their discovery outstripped the then current theoretical models. 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Thomas Baccei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.192.84 (talk) — 71.161.192.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd disagree with your assertions regarding 'empirical evidence', but that is beside the point. Wikipedia is not a forum for breaking news about untested scientific claims (and Rossi is not actually making any, in any recognised peer-reviewed journal or other meaningful source). If and when the science is recognised, we can write about it. If you want speculative journalism, you can find plenty elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, E-Cat is a product, not just research. Wikipedia has entries about products that are about to be released. Which is just the case here, selling started according to AR. What is missing at this point is a number installed customers that are willing to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.53.18 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi is not a reliable source for anything but his own opinions - and the "number installed customers that are willing to report" is apparently zero - or do you have a source to the contrary? Again, I point out that this is a discussion about the article with regard to Wikipedia policy, not a general debate about the E-Cat itself. Please stay on topic, and keep your speculation to yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As many editors have already pointed out, the notion that the claims are "not recognised science" is not a justification for deletion. Andy stop pushing this ridiculous misconception of wikipedia policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I made that assertion? I was replying to claims that 'E-Cat is a product' - for which we have no source. And I don't need lessons on Wikipedia policy from someone who thinks that unsourced speculation about Rossi's recreational activities is valid article material [12], or that we should discuss the suitability of the ~~teapot~~ E-Cat as a means to make tea (yes, really - see: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_5#Cup_of_tea) in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another mode of discussion that you are capable of other than ridicule ? You use ~~teapot~~ all over the place. It was my intent to improve the article by giving it a little more background with the "cup of tea" phrase, and how that phrase has been used in relation with cold fusion. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "If and when the science is recognised, we can write about it." I read that as: "As long as it is not recognised science we don't need the article". --POVbrigand (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filling articles with off-topic speculative crap does not constitute an 'improvement'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are really showcasing your civility once more --POVbrigand (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a noteworthy scam. The article though is terrible and should be edited down. Bhny (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep/Speedy Keep -- And why did somebody think they could get away with a simple PROD? If you read the talk page, this has been a very contentious article, so I would argue that the deletion request is being made strictly on the ground of being disruptive to the article and certainly not being cooperative. It clearly has multiple sources in terms of basic notability. That the detailed explanation of this concept may be very thin on those sources is true, but this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing which sources may be reliable or not other than to discuss basic notability and its qualifications for being included on Wikipedia. It has received coverage on CNN, Forbes, and other "mainstream" news media outlets to at least confirm notability of the concept as deserving to be discussed on Wikipedia. It may be a scam, but then again scams certainly are worthy of being written about on Wikipedia as well. This article deserves some attention by some admins as there has been situations of WP:OWN, and edit warring on a massive scale where some editors simply can't get anything contributed at all. The original rationale for deletion was simply boneheaded at least for why this article should be deleted and the rest of the article issues can certainly be dealt with elsewhere. At least use reasonable grounds for why it should be deleted other than "it is a scam". --Robert Horning (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has plenty of coverage in magazines and web sites, so even if it is a fake it is still notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There needs to be a neutral Wikipedia entry on this device available for people who become freshly acquainted with it through the increasing news coverage it is getting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewoudenberg (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whether or not this is a scam (and personally, I think it's likely to be one) it's interesting and potentially important. And there are plenty of current journalistic sources including the Forbes online magazine article here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/2/ -- perhaps someone could add that? Thousands and thousands of people have read about Rossi and the E-cat. It needs to be available via Wikipedia.Maryyugo (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is on the verge of descending into a mud-slinging match between two increasingly entrenched camps. Please try to limit the discussion to the merits of the article (sources, notability of the subject, independent coverage...). Insisting on a personal opinion (e.g. that the subject is a scam/major breakthrough) is unlikely to be seen as a valid argument for deletion/retention, and is unhelpful as it will polarize the opinions further. Sources for both views are available and should both be considered if the result of this discussion is 'keep'. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be about a claim for inventing a specific device that is claimed to produce excessive amounts of energy from partially undisclosed ingredients for demonstrably short amounts of time (hours). Although as a graduate physicist I don't believe (warning: original research) that claimed process (reacting nickel with hydrogen to produce copper) can take place exothermically, i.e. to produce heat (it in fact can take place endothermically, as copper-63 has lower binding energy than nickel-62), I know plenty of other processes that can produce heat in said quantity and volume for said amount of time (like highly unstable isotopes of certain elements), which would explain most of the weirdness observed in the experiment, as well as inventor's ban on radiation measurement equipment. Yes, i believe it is a scam. Nevertheless, it is notable enough to be mentioned as such in Wikipedia, with proper warnings about possible scientific controversies. See, for example, EmDrive. 79.179.42.190 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There has been very much independent commentary and even validation, including by a major, well-known entity in the U.S. that starts with an N (I can't disclose what I know, for confidentiality reasons). More validation is pending. I've posted a back-up copy of the page at http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Energy_Catalyzer Also, see our list of coverage (not comprehensive, but extensive), as we've chronicled it at http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Rossi_Cold_Fusion -- Sterlingda (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (who was present at the Oct. 28, 2011 test here in Bologna)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on material from published reliable sources, not on unverifiable claims from clearly-partisan blog writers, particularly ones who give the impression of being here to spam links to a website that appears to make money from advertising. If you were at the Oct 28th test, publish the details in a valid source, and we can consider its relevence. As for 'N', we aren't interested in guessing games, and until we see details, are entirely entitled to treat this as something starting with 'B' and 'S'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sterlingda is reposting propaganda verbatim from Rossi's blog "journal." He's probably financially interested in promoting it and so should be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There has been media exposure in known journals and peripheral involvement by reputable scientists. Commercial sale reality or lack of it will become evident within months. Then if necessary the article can be cut or altered to function as an historic record. There are known attendences at Rossi's demonstrations by political, industrial and academic represenatives (for example at the Defkalion media launch and the October 6 demonstration) to make it a matter of minor historical interest should it be a fake. Star A Star (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep Primary sources and original research should be eliminated from the article before a even debating decision to delete. Jim Bowery (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move This is about a current event that is getting some mainstream press. If it's borne out to be a fake then it can be pushed as a footnote into LENR/Cold Fusion articles. While it's still up in the air I think there's plenty of notability about the story. It should be moved to a '2011 Rossi Cold Fusion claims' current event page. Jherico (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom. Ni-H cold fusion is not, pace the nominator, a field with "no science behind it" - it was extensively written up in the 1990s. The tests of the device have gained enough press coverage to meet WP:N and the sources meet RS. Might want to consider merging Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) into Energy Catalyzer though. Also, the following reasoning is ridiculous:

If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago.

Er, who cooks monatomic hydrogen in a frying pan? Miracle Pen (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly good faith nomination. Wikipedia is not the venue to promote scams. Crisco and butter have lots of hydrogen in them. You cannot transmute elements by chemical means. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Promoting scams" is not a criterion in WP:N, and so the scam-ness or not of the Catalyzer is not a rationale for deletion, as others have already pointed out above. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to choose which of the laws of physics you can ignore. If a hydrogen atom can migrate through the tens of millions of electron-volts of potential required to penetrate a nickel nucleus, it can darn well scrape up a couple of extra electron-volts to break a comparatively feeble chemical bond in a molecule of bacon fat. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to overcoming Coulomb repulsion? Miracle Pen (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were this easy to stick together nuclei, we would have had 60 years worth of unemployed physics grad students. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the theories of nickel-hydrogen LENR (apparently in Piantelli's 2008 patent filing) is that hydride ions are substituting for electrons, and the process plays out more or less like muon-catalyzed fusion. Hydride ions, like muons, are negatively charged, and so there's no Coulomb repulsion to speak of. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The e-cat has recently got a lot of attention in the media because of all the progress that is being made by the inventor. It has gotten to the point where unless Rossi is flat out lying, which seems highly unlikely, then the Energy Catalyzer, based off the information we have, most likely works. The fact that somebody has marked this article for deletion now, seems based more on the information coming out now that indicates the E-cats success rather then it's failure. It seems more likely that the nominator marked this page for deletion because they have a personal vendetta against the inventor and would like to see him fail, for whatever reason. This call for deletion seems to have nothing to do with it being a scam, as there is no proof of that yet. Even if the E-cat is a scam, then it is one of the most elaborate scams in history, that alone justifies it's Wikipedia page.

Strong Keep There's no reason for deletion. Mainstream media reported on this. Most of the sources in the article are reliable. And the article doesn't say that it "works". The article says it exists, and it is "claimed to work". Siaraman (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by nominator The device is claimed to make nuclear transmutation by chemical means, something humanity's top brains have been working on since the alchemists and which we know to be impossible. The promoters are apparently taking money for a device that can't possibly work. Lots of publicity, lots of veiled hints of secret deals, no peer-reviewed proofs, lots of demonstrations for the credulous and the unschooled, - all we need is allegations of cover ups by Big Oil and we'll have the complete suite of crackpottery. HOw is this scam notable compared to any other free-energy scam? Has it taken in a lot more money yet? Unless it's a notable scam in its own right, it can be easily appended as a footnote to some other cold-fusion article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not the theory makes any sense is irrelevant to this discussion. They could claim that it's tiny badgers that force hydrogen and nickel together for all I care. The point here is notability, not feasibility. Like it or not, 'Lots of publicity, lots of veiled hints of secret deals, no peer-reviewed proofs, lots of demonstrations for the credulous and the unschooled' have been enough to generate that notability. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is a scam, it's a noteworthy scam because the inventor has claimed to have sold a one megawatt generator to a U.S. customer affiliated with NATO; The day this was allegedly sold, last Friday, Rossi put together a very elaborate demonstration of the plant that had scientists and engineers in attendance along with a reporter from the AP (Who is yet to release their report). If this is a scam, then it is a very expensive scam that requires that not only the customer to be fake (I think it's the NAVY), but also that the entire demonstration on Friday was staged in some very elaborate way. The information of how this was staged is important in and of itself, assuming it's scam. However, assuming it's scam at this point is based on flimsy logic at best. The basis for this being a scam is essentially based on Rossi's creditability, and conspiracy theories that the customer doesn't really exist. I call into question way we should pay attention to to the nominator on the issue of Rossi's credibility as the Nominator accuse the man of being a scam artist with no verifiable proof. How did Rossi stage the event on Friday? You give no information or site any sources to back up your conspiracy theory, because that's what it is, that Rossi staged the event on Friday. Instead you just make the assumption it is a scam, based on the assumptions of the scientific consensus. This can be equated to the same assumptions made by those that assumed the Earth was flat, because common knowledge tells you that you would fall off the earth if it was round; I would define appealing to mass consensus as an illogical fallacy. Your not looking at the issue at hand, which, assuming it's a scam, is: how did Rossi fake it? To which you have provided nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.69.52 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion is about whether the E-Cat article is suitable for wikipedia according to our policies and norms, not on whether individuals think the E-Cat is 'a scam', and note in particular that making negative comments about other contributors is unlikely to be effective. Finally, do you have a reliable source for the customer being affiliated with NATO? If so, it should go in the article. As far as I'm aware, no such source is available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nominator made it quit clear that their basis for deletion is about the E-cat being a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.69.52 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Voting irregularities! There appears to be a high number of one edit and infrequently used accounts participating in the vote. Is this grounds for a sock puppet check? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Voting is evil. We work by consensus, though I don't envy the admin who closes this one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And single purpose account creation and canvassing can skew the concensus. The vote is mentioned on fringe websites, this may be the cause [13] [14] of this. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie,

this is not a referendum, and the decision must be taken on the basis of consensus.

About the pages you cited: there is no mention about vote, there is mention about the fact that the E-Cat page on Wikipedia has been flagged. There is a huge diffence between the two things.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly obvious that mentioning deletions in progress and providing links is a canvassing technique. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can put forward to us reliable sources to support your claim. --79.6.8.194 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Canvassing, particularly Campaigning: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notification of discussion. As the matter of fact, this page is not mentioned.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is basically no difference between 'mentioning the vote' and 'mentioning the fact'. You know that there isn't. Now can we forget about whether or not the blasted thing works and decide if it is notable or not? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The media hubbub around the E-Cat might possibly pass WP:NOTABILITY standards (though it would need a source that commented on the hubbub, rather than merely adding to it - otherwise we are engaging in original research by asserting its significance), but it seems to me that there is simply insufficient information from independent reliable sources to justify an encyclopaedic article. If the E-Cat turns out to be significant (or a significant scam) and material is available, it may well be that an article can be justified in future - but for now, all we have is questionable 'news' managed by Rossi, hype, and speculation - so, per WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL etc, the time for such an article is not now. Not every 'notable' thing is fit for an encyclopaedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andy for being one of the few people here who are at least willing to discuss this, even if you disagree with me. I believe the subject is notable because it did have a large amount of independent coverage in well-respected media, which I think is sufficient to warrant an article. In my view, a source commenting on the hubbub isn't necessary, as the article is entitled 'Energy catalyzer', rather than 'Energy catalyzer controversy'. I don't think having an article asserts significance as long as it sticks to reliable sources. I believe a neutral descriptive article is possible without having to wait how this pans out (cf. GFAJ-1). Having said that, I'm tending more and more towards a delete myself now, simply because I can't see how this article will ever be neutral or well-written. Several people have attempted to improve the article over the last few days by removing irrelevant detail and making the style less 'bloggy', only to be immediately reverted with a cry of 'this is important information!'. The article is awfully written, and it will be impossible to improve it without being attacked by either the pro or contra camps. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is essentially the point I was trying to make - that it just isn't possible to write an encyclopaedic article on the E-Cat with so little real information, and a huge amount of questionable speculation instead. Essentially, almost all the 'keep' arguments seem to come down to assertions of notability based on the fact that it has been written about, rather than the meaningful content of what is written. Others are suggesting that it will be notable in the future, one way or another. This may be true, but per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we need to assess the article on what is immediately available, not what we think will be available later. I suspect the topic is so divisive largely because there is little concrete evidence to go on. It seems to be more about faith than science, and about expectations than events. Some things are just not amenable to the Wikipedia process, and the E-Cat seems to be a prime example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that commented on the hubbub: [15]. "If you’ve missed the recent brouhaha over the E-Cat (which stands for Energy Catalyzer), you’re missing out on a three ring circus over a technology that will either change everything or change nothing because what is promised is, in theory, power too cheap to be worth metering." Andy, true overlord of this article, desire anything else ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that in principle there is enough verifiable information in reliable media to write a worthwile article, but unfortunately it seems almost certain that it will be completely swamped by nebulous assertion taken from someone's private blog (a la '...an agency with an N... but I can't say which!') and 'disclaimers' by scientific POV warriors. I don't see a problem with the amount or reliability of the available information (e.g. POVbrigand's example in Forbes), but unfortunately there is also a lot of unverifiable and irrelevant crud out there that will end up in the article and will be impossible to get rid of. I really don't know how that can be dealt with effectively, or if having no article is better than having this article (i.e. in its current form). POVbrigand, what are your thoughts on this? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not share your worries that this article will accumulate unverifiable crud. Most of the pro-editors, I believe, don't want the article to end up like a fan page. They are just concerned about presenting to the WP-reader a balanced story about the e-cat, what it is and what it isn't. Now that the demonstration "phase" is apparently over, we can concentrate on improving the article by cutting out the unnecessary parts. The next big content addition will be when the promised scientific evaluation at the uni Bologna or uni Uppsala will present a scientific assessment. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already full of largely irrelevant trivia and an excessive amount of direct quotations. As far as I can see, all attempts to address this were immediately reverted. A balanced article of appropriate length would be nice, but how can this realistically be achieved? I suppose simply waiting for the hype to die down is an option, but it isn't particularly satisfying. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to achieve this ? Simple, wait for the current edit frenzy to cool down. The main editors agreeing to abstain for a week or so. The pro-camp is just adding quotations as a reaction to the deny-camp dismissing it a priori. I bet that 4 editors from both sides (ie 8 editors in total) could trim/tune this article within a week. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can but hope... Putting a temporary edit block on the article might allow things to cool. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what benefit would come to Wikipedia if this article was deleted. There are so many people interested in this topic at the moment that it is bound to be repeatedly re-created even if it was deleted, and then salting the article title doesn't seem to be a much better solution either. Yes, this article is going through a nearly continuous edit war, but other articles on Wikipedia also have that same "problem". I think that only goes to demonstrate the notability of the article as a lack of notability usually is about topics which will lack editors. Suggesting that edit wars are happening and that there is a whole community of editors willing to work on this, with two (or more) philosophical camps about what should be in the article strongly suggests that an AfD was the wrong way to tone down the rhetoric. If anything, this AfD has just ramped up the intensity where it has emboldened the proponents as those who would be critical are now seen as "the enemy", not worthy of compromise because the "opposing camp" sees deletion as the ultimate goal of any compromise effort. This is the reason I am suggesting this discussion simply be closed as the longer this deletion discussion languishes the more fire that is going to be poured into the discussion.

If you were talking about deleting this article because nobody would edit the article after it is written, there are many such articles on Wikipedia. Those lack notability. Regardless of the actual "vote count", there certainly is plenty of interest in this topic. I have also not seen a compelling rational for why the article must be deleted, and article quality is never legitimate grounds for deletion. Article quality can be improved by enforcing standards (including the style guide if necessary) and legitimate consensus on what should be in the article.... but that should happen on the talk page of the article and not in the AfD. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I'm just not sure how the standards could be enforced, or how a consensus can be reached, even after discussion on the talk page. I agree though that deletion isn't an ideal solution. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Consensus, which covers the topic more than adequately. Consensus means you are calm, willing to be open to other viewpoints, and on occasion willing to compromise when necessary. It also implies you don't have all of the answers, and that you may on occasion be wrong. That is how standards are enforced, sometimes swinging the ban hammer when people aren't willing to engage in the process (as a measure of last resort). It also implies you are willing to let others edit the page and not revert almost everything that is contrary to your POV. As to if that is possible on this article, I would think it could be. Barack Obama and George W. Bush have been able to be written (even quality articles at that) in spite of massive POV camps that have weighed in on both articles from practically the first day those articles were created. It can be done here too. I also have faith that Wikipedia articles tend to improve over time, especially as more editors become interested in a topic. All of the moaning and screaming on the talk page is a sign that there are many who want a quality article, and as such I generally assume good faith on the part of the participants. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duh! Time Cube gets an article, but not the Energy Catalyzer? "If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago." Red herring much? If I had a nickel's-worth for every argument that was this flawed, I would have all the money in the world.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Cube article doesn't present it as anything other than a crackpot website. In contrast, given the present state of our article, the less knowledgeable reader might assume that he/she will be pulling the boiler out of the basement in a year or two, to fit a shiny new E-Cat. Anyway, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Alanf777 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Please explain your policy based reasons why you think the article should be kept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put that in as a place-holder, to counter the "no contributors have posted here" meme.

Reliable Sources : There are sufficient reliable sources who have reported first hand (NyTeknik, focus etc) to be certain that the eCat exists.

For the rest -- I rely on an "emergent science" argument. The theory is unknown, but all that is required is to demonstrate excess heat. Although none of the tests has proved conclusively that it DOES produce excess heat, neither have they proved that it does NOT (see the Non-RS vortex list for the most extensive joint analysis on the subject. These are probably the MOST peer-reviewed tests ever. Ignoring the experimental numbers, a qualitative review indicates something is going on.) Even Krivit argues that Nickel-Hydrogen is real, but Rossi is faking it. Circumstantially, the ongoing involvement of the University of Bologna team indicates they are convinced.
Notability : Any of three modes are notable a) The eCat is real b) Rossi is one of the greatest hypnotists (although only Krivit has the kryptonite) c) It's going to be the biggest scientific scam ever ( eg the Defkalion $67M per factory offer). Quoting from a vortex contributor : follow the money. If Rossi did indeed get $2m (est)for the 1MW system, he says he will pay UofB the contract money (after he cancelled the Defkalion contract he reportedly sold his house in order to continue, and was unable to pay UofB). The activation of the contract will show up in the UofB system.

Next 1MW is reportedly to be delivered in 3 months, with a less-secretive customer. May as well leave the article up. Alanf777 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing such convincing evidence for why this article is so problematic - your arguments consist entirely of WP:OR and outright speculation, and are consequently of no relevance to this discussion, or to any worthwhile article on the E-Cat. Now, can you come up with policy based reasons why the article should be kept? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) See note by Zedshort a few posts down "so personal experience and perspective are of some value" b) I summarized three reasons why I think it conforms to wiki policy -- and no, I don't intend to copy lines and lines of wikiwonk c) Ah, heck -- delete it then. And the new ones that will pop up daily when people notice there's no ecat article. Alanf777 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The attempt to delete smacks too much of the attempt at the defacto censorship that the cold fusion/LENR field has suffered for the past twenty-two years. This is one device that stands out among all the rest for its substantial amount of net heat out and its high COP (coefficient of performance). The claims by Rossi are that it produces heat but none of the expected emissions that hot fusion would be expected to produce and it appears to work that way. He is not claiming it works by chemical means and suggests some other not fully explained pathway causes the transmutation of elements and heat output. The fact that he does not deliver a complete, tested and pier reviewed and vetted paper that completely explains its operation does not negate the fact that it does produce substantial amounts of heat reliably makes the e-cat noteworthy of everybody and even a few articles in the popular media. In the past, it was not unusual for a new invention to be brought forth and sold on the market before the theories of physics caught up enough to fully explain the device’s operation. It is unusual today for that to happen but keep in mind that the last page of physics has not been written (and never will) and the next page, I suspect, will be about LENR. For what it is worth, I am a mechanical engineer, I know how to perform an energy balance on such a system, I have seen the data posted by Ny-Tecknic and find it produces substantial heat. Although the experiment could have been slightly improved there is no change that could have been made that would have negated the amount of heat produced and so changed the result and my conclusion that it works. It works and not by way of any chemical means.

The repeated labeling this as a “scam” or declaring that it is based on “pathological” science is not sufficient to justify it’s deletion. Surely there have been many scams in the past and will be in the future but for me this case does not pass the duck test. All the people involved seem to be behaving totally unlike scammers and the deluded can’t stand the light of day for too long. Zedshort (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of what you say is based on reliable sources, your opinion on the validity of the E-Cat is irrelevant. Do you have anything to say regarding the article, and its relation to Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion of the article and so the constraints here are much looser than in the article and so personal experience and perspective are of some value. Your constant harping on what you think are hard and fast rules suggests you do not understand that there are no rules but only guidelines and the first rule is to break the rules. Zedshort (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although mainstream peer-reviewed publications are hard to find, no surprise after the Fleischmann-Pons demise, the movie put on Youtube by Dr. Brian Josephson in which he discusses with his coleague Judith Driscoll the interest of this invention is well worth watching. They are both professors of physics, and materials science, respectively at Cambridge University. In fact Brian Josephson won the Nobel Prize for phyiscs in 1973, so if that doesn't account for scientific stature i don't know what you would be looking for. Brian Josephson video 217.149.200.230 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Josephson has had no opportunity to examine the E-Cat himself, and nor has he been given enough details of its inner workings, as far as I'm aware, to make any definitive statements on its validity. (though if this is incorrect, I'm sure he will let us know). As a known supporter of 'cold fusion' amongst other radical ideas, he is entirely entitled to express his opinion - but scientific validity isn't determined by prizes awarded (and if it were, I suspect that Prof. Josephson would quite likely be outnumbered by other laureates in regard to the validity of the E-Cat). It simply isn't possible to justify an article by 'endorsement' alone, no matter how qualified the endorsee is - and I note that Prof Josephson has not attempted to 'pull rank' in his comments here. It would seem rather questionable to attempt to do this for him. He apparently thinks the E-Cat may work, and he is entitled to express that opinion - as an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but I have been following this issue since February and read the article and Talk on it over time. It seems to me that AndyTheGrump and Wtshymanski have been pushing this deletion line for some time when clearly the better thing is to wait for a time. They keep repeating that it is simply a scam and impossible and should be deleted. They seem keen to act straight away, what is the sense of urgency? Unless something happens, isn't it just going to sit largely as it is? Please note I do not think it is appropriate to say it is a fake or not. That is not up to us. I understand both points of view and am waiting for a while longer for events (this situation is highly unusual in my opinion, even for a scam, even for an experimental breakthrough). However, reputable scientists have been involved in this project and it has been widely reported. It has been discussed in scientific circles, according to my scientist/executive friend in automation and robotics. In addition, it has clearly and patently been widely reported in journals as an event. The site does not sponsor Rossi. Whatever its formal rules, Wikipedia functions as a non-commercial information base for the public including on public events. I think those who are in favour of deletion should rather argue for shortening the article. I don't understand why persons are referring to such an editing process as impossible or extremely difficult. I have done professional editing for 12 years in total and can't see any problem. Deleted details can be found by interested viewers on the blog sites if they are interested. If new information supports Rossi's claims the article can be re-expanded. That's the beauty of the Internet, it's flexible. Star A Star (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star A Star (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Star A Star (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please confine your comments to the issue here, which is whether the article is compatible with Wikipedia policy (for which you should read [[WP:NOTCRYSTALLBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:OR etc), rather than misrepresenting the opinions of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FromWP:NOTNEWSPAPER : "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." This is one such article. This article touches on many subjects in WP and is of great importance as it could in the very near future result not just in the inclusion of the event of this invention but radically affect their future. A short list of what will be affected is energy, economics, food production, poverty, geo-politics, pollution...etc. I am sure that if you re-read the "rules" you are so fond of quoting you will in all cases find room for such an article unless you continue to read them in your very biased manner. And once again they are guidelines. Zedshort (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that there are fundamental obstacles to shortening and improving the article in terms of the available data and sources. In practice however, every attempt to do this has been very rapidly reverted. This isn’t an editorial problem, but one of opposing views and procedure. However, as Robert pointed out, good articles on other contentious subjects (George W. Bush, Obama) exist, so mechanisms to deal with this are available. These need to be implemented. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Strong) It really does not matter whether this Energy Catalyzer or Low Energy Nuclear Fusion are true or a hoax/wishful thinking. The terms E-CAT and LENR are all over the Internet, and therefore people like me need a place to look them up. They seem to be a fixture of the modern world, and that alone makes this page needed. -- Wikipedia has articles about other "untrue" things like Alchemy, and about other trademarked things like the iPod, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.37.71 (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rossi is using the web on unfair terms to propagandized his alleged invention but he refuses till now to submit it to any form of serious, indipendent and scientifically correct test . Moreover, so far he has not fulfilled any of his numerous announcements. If the invention of a new form of energy is a fake, deleting articles about the so called Energy Catalyzer it will contribute to avoid potential scams. To the contrary, if the invention is real and works, deletion will stimulate Rossi to provide suitable proofs for is extraordinary claims. Chiostri (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (moved from the talk page by SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete. Even LENR researchers keep saying that Rossi continues to avoid simple changes in the testing procedures that could easily validate his claim. Yet Rossi refuses time after time. Still after all this time Rossi refuses to allow notable academic scientists who specialize in Nuclear physics & energy measurements to sign a NDA and have it verified. Rossi won't even give out the name of this so-called American company that's going to buy the eCat. In my firm opinion, the eCat is all a big fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.65.26 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources reported in the article seem to be fully reliable. Notable coverage from media.--Insilvis (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrea Rossi — cull dramatically. It's really sad that this scam is being promoted on Wikipedia and throughout the credulous cold fusion community, but it's not the first time that this has happened. The problem here is that the device is being promoted and the encyclopedic character of this topic is essentially completely tied in to the inventor who has a track record that should make anyone pause. The fact is that the sources used for this article are mostly promotional puff-pieces that do not serve to establish independent notability required of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources and the few citations that do fulfill that requirement are so off-handed and critical of the claims as to make one think that the subject doesn't deserve an article separate from that of its inventor. Compare, CSETI and Steven M. Greer for a similar fringe-theory type of example. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the number of newspaper articles clearly shows the subject is notable enough for an article (see WP:SIGCOV). If and how it works is really of no relevance. // Liftarn (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty poor rationale for keeping a devoted article, if I do say so myself. The newspaper articles show that various breathless newspaper reporters have written about the publicity stunt, but WP:NOT#NEWS seems to be of relevance here. The provenance of this article is engineering, science, and psedusocience — not newspaper reporting. The article on Rossi himself can easily suffice as a holding pen for this idea and whatever future schemes he next promotes. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually according to WP:SIGCOV it is a very good reason. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." // Liftarn (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrea Rossi is a pretty famous huckster with significant coverage abounding about his various schemes. Having an article about him seems reasonable. But you have just committed the cardinal sin of confusing WP:RECENTISM with WP:SIGCOV. It's okay, it's easy to be blindsided by the media and the exciting abilities to search on the internet. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is well sourced and needed by Wikipedia. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My dear !voter, Wikipedia no more "needs" this article than it "needs" a treatise on any other half-cocked idea. The real question is whether this particular bit of baloney is encyclopedic enough to deserve an article. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is clearly notable, as it is discussed extensively in science news circles. Whether it works or not or whether it is entirely a fringe topic is inconsequential to the notability of the subject from reliable sources discussing it. This AfD is pointless. Silver seren^C 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let us know where we can find these 'extensive discussions in science news circles'? If they are out there, they ought to be looked at as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you click News, Books, and Scholar at the top, you can find them, such as this, this, this, ect. Though the bulk of the sources will obviously be in Italian. Silver seren^C 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your 'science news circles' consist of an article in the International Business Times (see WP:RSN comments on that source [16]) written by a 'corporate and transaction attorney', an article from the Tehran Times, and a pdf which cites Wikipedia as a source and says that " the aim of my paper is not a discussion on E-Cat"? Need I say more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, but the coverage by Forbes, Wired and Ny Teknik is easily enough to demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving examples, but here, a series of articles on it, published in Network World and Forbes. And, getting into Italian sources, you have this. Oh, wait, found some more English ones, like OilPrice, Business Recorder. And back to Italian, il Democratico, L'Essenziale, il Tam Tam, and such. Silver seren^C 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget not The Voice of Russia, Focus, Science Reporter, La Stampa, Il Sole 24 Ore, La Repubblica, Il Tempo, Il Resto del Carlino, etc...

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give actual links to those sources? That would be more helpful than just links to their Wikipedia articles. Silver seren^C 17:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage.

The Italian newspapers Il Sole 24 Ore ( Bologna Si Candida Per Il Brevetto In Giappone ancora un mese di lavoro – Sono ricerche molto complesse e costose), Il Tempo ( Il Tempo – Spettacoli – L'energia gratis parla italiano ), La Stampa ( [17] [18] ), Il Fatto Quotidiano ( [19] ), Il Resto del Carlino ( [20] ) and La Repubblica ( [21] ), various national Italian radio stations and news magazines ( Oggi, "Fusione Fredda. Ecco la macchina dell'energia pulita" p. 1, 2, 3 , Panorama, "Parla lo scienziato che ha inventato la fusione nucleare a freddo" "Fusione nucleare a freddo: i dubbi del fisico Antonio Zoccoli" ), have reported on the Energy Catalyzer.

The monthly popular science magazines Focus ( [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]) in Italy and Science Reporter ( Science Reporter, July 2011. Author: Mahadeva Srinivasan. Feature article: Cold fusion poised to become an industrial reality ) in India have also covered.

It was the topic of a series of articles in the Swedish Ny Teknik ( Ny Teknik Articles on Cold Fusion ) and an article in German Telepolis ( Kalte Fusion in der Black Box? ).

In Greece, coverage appeared in the newspaper Makedonia ( http://defkalion-energy.com/files/2011_06_29_MAKEDONIA_PP22.pdf ), in the financial newspaper Express ( Επένδυση 200 εκατ. στην Ξάνθη για «πράσινη» ενέργεια ) and on the State-owned New Hellenic Television ( ‪energy catalyzer – Defkalion Green Technologies on NET tv HD‬‏ ).

In the United States it was also reported in EE Times ( [27] ), presented in the Fox News Channel ( Scientists Claim (Dubious) Cold Fusion Breakthrough ), Discovery News ( Cold Fusion Claims Resurface ), the Washington Times ( Nuclear future beyond Japan. Purported cold fusion advance aimed at energy woes ) and in the show Coast to Coast AM ( Rossi Cold Fusion Device ).

Coverage about the Energy Catalyzer was aired also by the Voice of Russia ( Cold fusion: reality or utopia?: Voice of Russia ).

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list above is not complete, of course. You must add at least Forbes and Wired.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox : Cold Fusion Experiment: Major Success or Complex Hoax? http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

We may be seeing a media breakout from "ignore" to "real or hoax" Alanf777 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just how many of those are "extensive discussions in science news circles", as opposed to recycled page fillers? How many of them discuss the 'science' in any detail (difficult, since Rossi won't tell us what it is)? No, there has been shallow but fairly widespread reporting in sections of the media - all of which repeats the same 'information', sourced to Rossi, or recycled from Ny Teknik and one or two less-credible sources. In any case, as I have already pointed out, notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for an article topic, and [[WP:NOT] seems to apply to much of this - see WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTPROMOTION etc. And of course see WP:FRINGE. Attempts to present the E-Cat as 'science' are fundamentally at odds with this, and there simply isn't enough other verifiable material of relevance to an encyclopaedic article to justify it. The story comes down to a man with a murky past making implausible claims about having made a fundamental scientific breakthrough using little more than domestic plumbing (and unnamed 'substances'),backed up solely by stage-managed 'demonstrations' that cannot possibly be seen as evidence for anything beyond the credulity of some of the participants - though that seems sometimes to evaporate later, with a little sober reflection on what exactly was witnessed. This might be good entertainment, and no doubt makes the 'believers' happy, but do we really have to describe this circus act in Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, where is WP:N does it mention "notability is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for an article"? I can't find it and have never come across this before. Second, if sources have covered something, then we should aim to provide a encyclopedic summary of these sources. The fact that they may not be true, or that they don't explain everything, is not a reason to completely ignore the topic. Whether we know if / how it works does not matter regarding inclusion of the topic. Thankfully, there are now plenty of sources which can be used to say that Rossi has not allowed any independent verification of the ecat and so our article can reflect this and be sceptical too. SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not" (my emphasis). As for the sources, what exactly are we going to use them for? The 'science' is unverifiable, and the 'demonstrations' are a stage-show. If all we cite articles for is for Rossi refusing to allow the device to be properly verified, it isn't going to be much of an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that clause, however, I don't think that any of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTPROMOTION or WP:FRINGE can apply : NOT#NEWSPAPER - this article is not a first hand account or who's who and has enduring notability. CRYSTALBALL - the article isn't predicting anything - we're not saying that the ecat is going to power the world in 5 years time. NOTPROMOTION - I fire my cannon at spam regularly, but this article doesn't come close. Even if it did, if something is notable, it shouldn't be deleted unless it meets WP:CSD#G11. FRINGE isn't part on WP#NOT and therefore does not apply to whether we should have an article, but rather what the article should consist of. SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since it is getting very heated in this discussion about what does and does not qualify for deletion from Wikipedia, and even the original nominator doesn't seem to get it as evidenced by his recent edit on the Energy Catalyzer talk page, I'm going to go through each rationale for deletion on WP:Deletion Policy and point out why this particular article doesn't qualify:

Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

This page isn't gibberish or random junk or patent nonsense. If you want to work on the new page patrol for a day or so (you can do that as an ordinary editor), you will quickly discover just what is patent nonsense.

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

While this page certainly has some rather "spammy" sections, the article isn't strictly an advertisement of the product and certainly has people at least attempting to write a legitimate article within the philosophy of WP:NPOV

Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

Unless somebody can point out where another article which should host this content, I don't see this as an inappropriate content fork. It certainly has not been a rational for deletion other than with with original nomination, and even that wasn't a well formed objected.

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

This issue is perhaps the only significant issue under discussion, but the plethora of sources available seem to contradict the fact that sources can't be found.

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I've argued that some of the details may be lacking, and that certainly self-published sources do seem to dominate some of the technical issues of the topic, but there are reliable sources about some of the history of the topic and the chief issues like who the inventor(s) of this item may be and how it is being received in the scientific community certainly aren't in doubt, and can be backed up by reliable sources, along with at least what is being claimed that the object of which is the topic of this article is accomplishing.

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

Notability certainly has been achieved. There are several major article which are devoted to just this one topic and at least attempt to explain the concept in some depth covering multiple paragraphs. This includes several clear 3rd party publications, although I'll admit most of them tend to be news journals and not a more sought after scientific journals giving critical analysis of the topic. Typically in a deletion discussion the threshold is about 2-3 independent articles by different authors that aren't blogs or other more easily dismissed sources. I see that threshold met with plenty of room to spare.

Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Not even applicable other than in regards to Andrea Rossi, which is a separate article anyway.

Redundant or otherwise useless templates

Not applicable.

Categories representing overcategorization

Not applicable

Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy

Not applicable.

Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

So far not raised as an issue, and I don't see this even being an issue.

Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

This might be debated, as to if "psuedo science" or "free energy" is a legitimate topic on an encyclopedia, but this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. There certainly has been a good faith effort to write an encyclopedia article, even if it may have some clear problems in terms of its structure and content.

Through it all, I fail to see even one criteria above that even remotely qualifies this article for deletion. Please, if you have a reason for why this article must go, give the reason. I want to see it. If this article was lacking 3rd party sources, I would recommend it be move to the article incubator, but this article doesn't even belong there. Other discussion such as if this concept is a scam or something "real" simply don't belong on this page at all. Indeed, I think the original nomination itself was flawed as the rationale for deletion didn't even really cover a single one of these points as a possible reason for its deletion. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This might be suitable for a three-ring circus, but where is the material for encyclopedic article? Rossi refuses to provide it (to anyone, and he has been asked often enough), and instead he continues with his endless run of 'demonstrations', claims of 'customers' that seem always to evaporate when money is about to change hands, and yet more hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim this whole thing has become a three-ring circus and that Rossi is a joke which needs to be dismissed as a crackpot, that doesn't explain why this isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. You also completely miss what kind of "non encyclopedic content" that typically comes up needing this kind of claim in deletion discussions. If you wrote an original poem, spread around a "how-to" build one of these reactors, or wrote something that certainly wasn't even attempting to write an encyclopedia article of any kind, you might have a point. The scope of what is being attempted here is to write an encyclopedic article about the "Energy Catalyzer", or am I missing something here that you see but I don't? It starts with a lead paragraph, goes into details about what the whole thing is about, covers some of the history of the device, and adds details like you would generally find in other kinds of encyclopedias. There may be some specific sections you can (and you have) legitimately objected to, but I don't see that as a reason for deletion. This isn't something which needs to be moved to a Wikimedia sister project or to Wikia. Wikipedia has articles which cover fringe theories and even flat out hoaxes, although your insistence upon reliable sources is commendable. Those can be found and have been cited elsewhere in this discussion. If you think this topic in and of itself is inappropriate to be written about, please explain your reasoning by discussing why this particular topic is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. If this was an object in World of Warcraft instead of real life we were talking about, and you could only find a couple blogs talking about this topic, you might have a point. Please try with a better argument. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and banhammer a bunch of SPAs I have reviewed the sourcing. Aside from Ny Teknik, which appears to be a mouthpiece for the "inventors," and "New Energy Times," a pseudo-blog published by a frequently blocked/banned/whatever wikipedian, and a bunch of other blogs, SEO aggregates and credulous sources that repeat the blogs, there's also one reliable source - a blog by a Forbes contributor. There's a lot of text, and a lot of sources, due to the pressure by actual paid advocates who are engaging in what appears to be challenged as fraud by many. This is an entity attempting to sell units to the general public - and we're basically complicit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coment. No, you have not done it carefully:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/italian-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough/#ixzz1HFDdqNuC

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/28/cold-fusion

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/My%20Science%20Reporter%20Article%20on%20Rossi%20Reactor%20%28July%202011%29.pdf

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/e-cat-il-test-del-6-ottobre-le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/i-preparativi_19714201_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/l-accensione_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/autosostentamento-3-ore-o-4_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/che-cosa-c-e-dentro-all-e-cat_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx

http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx

Are these blogs?

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a conflict of interest you'd like to disclose (I can do it for you, if you'd like)? Most of those "sources," are not used to "source" anything - mostly they are transcriptions of blogs, or blogs themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I analyse the sources above mentioned:

1) Fox News: is it a blog?

2) Wired: is it a blog?

3) Washington Times: is it a blog?

4) Science Reporter: is it a blog?

5) Focus: is it a blog?

And, apart from those sources near above, nearly all the most important Italian newspapers have covered the E-Cat: are they blogs too?

All these sources are carefully reported in the talk page of the Energy Catalyzer. Sometimes are used in the article, sometimes are not: because of redundancy, you cannot put all the sources in the article, but they are all reported in talk page.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not discuss the prominence and reliability of sources with someone who has a massive conflict of interest unless they are willing to disclose that conflict of interest. The "sources" you quote above are not used to "source" anything in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you carefully check the history of the page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&action=history ) you will be able to find all the above mentioned sources. Unfortunately, not all the sources are kept: editors can add or remove what they want.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Energy Catalyzer were found to be worth One Trillion dollars, exactly how much of that would you be entitled to? Use round numbers. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well discuss it with me. Do you think Wired is a blog or biased source? Do you think Fox News is a blog?

As it's ridiculous to claim that Ny Teknik is a COI source overall, what's your evidence that they have been too closely linked over this one story in particular? Are you claiming perhaps that one journalist is over-focussed and less than impartial for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ny Teknik participated in the events which makes them a non-independent and primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be nasty; there's too much of that here already, mostly due to the nominator's comments. Isn't this supposed to be a civil discussion?62.30.137.128 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing nasty about informing people who have a large, direct, financial interest (anything you'd like to disclose?) that they have a large, direct, financial interest. There's nothing nasty about noting that the sources in question are not actually used to source anything. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then i'm directly asking you, what's wrong with the sources given? They are independent, reliable coverage of the subject. Whether the Energy Catalyzer actually works is a red herring argument. If a product works has nothing to do with its notability. Silver seren^C 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article included only the facts included in reliable sources it would not demonstrate notability, nor would it be any more than "Some guy says he has a magic device. Shitty tests were done, and they might have been fraud." Hipocrite (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given above discuss the E-Cat in fairly extensive detail. Yes, they say that it is a fraud, but they still discuss the implications of it and the demonstrations that have been made with it. Silver seren^C 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll admit that the popular news articles are plentiful, I think what some of these critics of this article are looking for is some critically reviewed 3rd party scientific journals or other "high quality" references which can be used to write this article. I'll openly admit those don't exist. This has turned into a media circus, and most of what can be found at the moment are news articles which are of general interest and written for the general public rather than for a scientific audience. BTW, this is something generally true for emergent technologies, where it simple takes take for these higher quality sources to show up... even if the thing is a fraud or not.

The argument by User:Hipocrite is attacking the concept itself, and I don't think he understands the concept of notability in the context of Wikipedia. That these general news stories really shouldn't be relied upon for the technical details of how this device works, they can be useful to identify notability in terms of if others are talking about the device, where it is being talked about, if this is something strictly local (such as a high school football legend (your choice on what football means), and more significantly from the standpoint of Wikipedia on a practical level, is this article going to have a sufficient interest on the part of Wikipedia contributors to keep this article being developed. Non-notable articles (thus content which needs to be deleted) usually suffers from a lack of interest, where some well meaning new contributor to Wikipedia writes an article about a broken down train depot or the quarterback of the local football team, where there might even be a local newspaper article about the kid or building. If that topic languishes for years without any other contributors, it can be a problem in terms of vandalism or even fact checking as nobody is even looking at the article.

This doesn't seem to be a problem with Energy Catalyzer as an article, as there certainly is interest in the topic and a great many contributors who want to add their $0.02 into how it works or doesn't. The sources are there, and certainly meet the basic standards of WP:NOTE in terms of what qualifies as notability on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar prior AFDs can be seen at 1 2 3 LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix - notability isn't really an issue, but sourcing needs to be seriously cleaned up. Insist on secondary reliable sources and this will become a much smaller article that is much easier to vett. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Brian Josephson, a nobel laureate endorses this article. Where does the nominator stand in front of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.47 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is irrelevant to the discussion, as it gives no policy related rationale. And the answer to the question is 'alongside', as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If awards and qualifications determined article content, Wikipedia would be a very different thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the science behind this article may be legitimately questioned, the article itself should be allowed to remain with the caveats that the test has not been duplicated by peer review. Until this occurs, the article should be categorized as an "unverified" test.Richardbamberg (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)— Richardbamberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: The article is painfully unencyclopedic, and should probably be merged into cold fusion. But, the cold-fusion enthusiasts seem committed to establishing a beachhead on Wikipedia. Since it's apparently vital to them to have a playground on this site, we may as well leave them this article for them to do as they see fit. It's keeping them busy, and probably making life easier for the editors at cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like reasoning based on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Better_here_than_there. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, too, but this may be the best way of dealing with the matter. Wikipedia policies are counsels of perfection and do not allow for the ease with which Wikipedia may be disrupted by small and determined pressure groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah right, that'll work. Reward the POV-pushers by giving them their own articles - that'll discourage them. [/sarcasm] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make the assumption that the article will be policed by the contributors to this Afd to ensure that it is NPOV. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So you're not offering to 'police' this playpen yourself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into cold fusion, as it has a similar status. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is a product the same as the science it uses? Are you suggesting all wave power products, such as Salter's duck, should be merged into wave power? Or that the Smith-Putnam wind turbine should be merged back into wind power? It's nonsensical. We do it based on reliable sources covering a subject. Silver seren^C 23:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for 'the science it uses'? Nobody else seems to - we have Rossi's claims, but even he won't actually tell anyone anything useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What science does it use? The equivalence of mass and energy; author: Einstein et al ; source: any encyclopedia, anywhere. As for the fine details, a specific theory that expands physics into the realm of the cold fusion is being worked on by people who are making rapid progress and it need not be here now for this article to be here now. Zedshort (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what it is stated to use. Whether it does or not has nothing to do with notability, again, it has to do with the coverage alone. Silver seren^C 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least an argument to merge is a valid argument to make here. My kudos for somebody who is opposed to this article to actually come up with a realistic argument that deserves some discussion. I would have liked some meat on the argument, but I'll take a stab to argue why a marge shouldn't happen here.

In my experience with Wikipedia over the years, article merges are appropriate if the topic is of just temporary interest (usually a week or so), has few other people interested in the topic, and has only one or two references and no primary sources to even look at. It also has to be something of significance to the topic for which it is being merged into as well.

I could wax on about how I think most mergists are out to lunch philosophically, as the logical conclusion to their viewpoint is to merge every article on Wikipedia into one continuous article about human experience and sort of misses the point of why articles are even written in the first place. Far too often merging of an article into some other topic also is just a more polite way to simply request that the topic be deleted entirely, but that the deletion will take place by an edit rather than using admin tools. Basically, I don't see that as a valid option in this situation.

At the very least, what would happen here presuming that a merge would occur, is to have all of the interested contributors jump into the "Energy Catlyzer" section of the Cold Fusion article and be expanding that section to the point it starts to either take over that article or turns into incessant edit wars about what the scope of the article is all about. For this reason alone, on top of the fact that I think there is more than sufficient information available for this particular topic to deserve its own Wikipedia article, it would be better for Wikipedia as a whole and for the Cold Fusion article itself in particular that this action simply not happen. The Cold Fusion article doesn't need this kind of edit warring or chest thumping, and that is better done in a separate article that currently has dozens of daily edits to sort through. In the best interest of Wikipedia and the editing tools themselves, I think keeping this as a separate article works about better for everybody involved and that article merging shouldn't even be an option. Perhaps a real encyclopedia article can be written, or do you care? --Robert Horning (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that merge into "cold fusion" is not an option. The energy catalyzer is mentioned there already in a concise way within the scope of that article. Merging would effectively mean deleting the article and adding a mere line or two to "cold fusion". --POVbrigand (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This currently surely meets WP:GNG. When the dust settles that may change, or may not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can something notable become non-notable? It's either notable or it is not. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys so this is my first wikipedia discussion, so go easy on me. After reading over many different people's point, I feel like as a physicsist I need to bring up one thing you guys seem to be forgetting or at least not factoring in. Setup: Ever since Kuhn, we have know that scientific and technological progress either occurs to gradual assimilation and adaptation of current theories or there is a rapid paradigm shift where to theories compete. As justified by constant battle back and forth between E-cat's validity this past year, one can clearly see that in this case we are in a paradigm shift between themonuclear fusion and E-cat (cold fusion). My Point: For those out there would disagree with me or that think that E-cat turns out to be a hoax, consider for a moment how the beginning of a paradagm shifts are accompanied by rapidly acceleration technological growth. This acceleration results from both sides know have a concrete and very human foe they are fighting against and must work harder if they expect to win and define the truth. Kuhn himself compared paradigms shifts to nonviolent political revolutions. Even if E-cat turns out to be a hoax it would still have a large influence on nuclear technology as a failure. Thus, I feel like E-cat notiability will always be in the challenge to common fusion idea that helped to make fusion a reality, even if that nuclear fusion is not E-cat..Physics16 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not science. It's more like an alchemist doing a magic show Bhny (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy was an attempt to transmute elements using chemistry. Transmutation of elements via fission and fusion has been known of for years. That fact is well established, now phycists must advance theory into the realm of cold fusion. Zedshort (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a forum for 'advancing theories' - We have policies (not guidelines) that state this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask what any of this has to do with notability of this article? Silver seren^C 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the comments here are about whether it is science or not. As a science article it's not at all notable and should be deleted, but as a thing that is in the news it's notable and should be kept. I voted above for 'keep', but if someone convinces me that this is science I'll change my mind Bhny (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG shouldn't apply any differently between topics, science or not. If it applies to one, then it applies to the other. If it was science, then that would mean that it could have the possibility of establishing presumption of notability through the subject specific notability guidelines, but the GNG is the baseline for proof of notability, as it is no longer presumed, but established. The sources here have clearly established that. (And, I personally think it isn't science. Not until it's shown to work, at least. For now, it's just a product.) Silver seren^C 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tangential reply; you mentioned being a physicist— you would probably enjoy reading Voodoo Science by Robert L. Park ("an emeritus professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park and a former Director of Public Information at the Washington office of the American Physical Society"). He described various ways in which the scientific process can go wrong; I submit that the eCat has a lot in common with the cold fusion (CF) events of 1989, including going to the press rather than through regular channels. The "paradigm" of CF was demolished and relegated to the realm of fringe science. I strongly suspect, ala User:Zedshort that this is just a new 'alchemy' with cheap clean energy rather than gold; in the 20s/30s you had people like Franz Tausend and Heinz Kurschildgen making fantastic claims too. My gut reaction to Rossi is to hold on to my wallet just a little tighter. -- Limulus (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Dr. George H. Miley's excellent report about low-energy nuclear reactions ( http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi ) has convinced me that Rossi's E-Cat probably is capable of transmuting nickel into copper. I believe that the capabilities of the E-Cat are being honestly represented by Rossi. He is reportedly offering E-Cats for sale to any qualified buyer and he is considering selling stock in his company ( http://ecatnews.com/?p=1197 ). The E-Cat is not a hoax or a scam. The article about the Energy Catalyzer should not be deleted. AnnaBennett (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the commercial break. Can we get back to business now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, the government of Italy has issued a patent to Rossi for his invention, the E-Cat. Rossi has now sold an E-Cat for a sum that probably exceeds $1,000,000. Rossi has not been arrested and charged with perpetrating a fraud in connection with that sale. These facts have strengthened my belief that the E-Cat is being honestly marketed by Rossi. You can believe otherwise but your belief does not give you a license to be rude to me. AnnaBennett (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is outside of my area of expertise, but I know dubious vote-stacking when I see it. Non-standard language is being used by a very large number of Keep voters. Sock puppets, meat puppets, whatever — it stinks. This strikes me as a promotional page for a snake oil machine, defended by a sockpuppet army. Sourcing is terrible. Does that make this deletable? Dunno. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is non-standard language? Zedshort (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and pretty much expected for a topic such as this. But, on the other hand, most of the Delete votes also aren't using proper arguments, either saying that there aren't any reliable sources on the product (refuted by sources given above) or that it isn't "real science" and a hoax, so it shouldn't be covered, which isn't even a real argument for deletion anyways. There are even people, amazingly, arguing that passing WP:N doesn't mean anything. Silver seren^C 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because passing WP:N is not an automatic indication of validity, per WP:NOT. It is necessary to pass WP:N, but not always sufficient. Of course, since some of the keep !votes seem to be based on WP:IAR, presumably the delete ones can be as well. Or does ignoring rules only apply to the pro-Rossi's-teapot faction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of the WP:NOT sections are you saying this article doesn't pass? Because passing WP:N means that it also passes practically all of the things listed on NOT. Passing WP:N means that it is not OR. If there is any POV in the article, then that should be fixed through normal editing, not deletion. Enduring notability for it being not just news is shown through the coverage of the device being across a fairly large span of time. And those are the only ones I can see that would apply to an article like this. So, which section are you talking about? Silver seren^C 03:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:NOT is neither about OR nor POV, it would appear that you haven't read it. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you haven't read it, since I was talking about the WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTPROMOTION sections. Silver seren^C 05:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've read two sections that support your views. Now read the others, that don't. Anyone can state that "this is o.k. because the policies I cite don't say anything against it", but it isn't much of an argument. Could you drop the Wikilawyering and explain how we can write an encyclopaedic article about something (which we can't describe) apparently doing something else (that we can't confirm), which is supposedly being purchase by customers (which we can't name) from someone who seems currently to be attempting to sell shares in his 'enterprise' (at least, he appears to be if you believe the evidence from some of the !keep comments)? There simply isn't enough verifiable evidence to justify anything more than a stub article - and even that is likely to be seized upon by advocates who cite every minor mention of Rossi's teapot as proof that it works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, reading your numerous comments, I got the impression that you take this issue personally, and not simply as a Wikipedia contributor. I hope you can tell me I'm wrong. Croquant (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can tell me why your comments are relevant to this discussion? I asked Silver seren to explain how we could write an encyclopaedic article with so little information - I'd like a reply, not a digression into my psyche. And yes, I care about this article - because I don't think that Wikipedia should be pushing fringe 'science' on behalf of a quasi-religious 'cold-fusion' cult, and an 'entrepreneur' with a proven track-record of dubious deals who seems to be exploiting the same, from all that we know so far. Could you explain exactly what is wrong with that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are meant to be very open. A fact of which you, Andy, have used to disparage and ridicule people who support this article as "believers" in a "magic teapot" or "unicorns", cult members, "pro-Rossi's-teapot faction" "quasi-religious 'cold-fusion' cult" or by disparaging the inventor Rossi as a plumber, or a crackpot and by suggesting that he is a criminal. Andy marches about raising his blue middle finger thinking that that will shut everyone up. Anyone so an-armored or rules as he is should be warned that he is showing his deep Teutonic roots. I will be here to respond to all those blue flags with quotes from the "rules" he is so fond flinging in others faces as I know what happens when you back down from a bullying martinet. Zedshort (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Your 'Teutonic roots' comment is deeply offensive. Please keep WP free of racist remarks such as this.~~ Thanks for your apology. I realize that you did not intend to mean it in such a way. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and goodbye 109a152a8a146. Are you what some people call a "sock puppet?" You popped in and out very quickly. I wonder is is possible for people such as Andy to disguise themselves in this way? If so I would like to understand how it is done, not that I would do it myself as such behavior is very low. Zedshort (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zedshort, some comments on the note you left on my talk page: I am quite obviously not AndyTheGrump's meatpuppet, for the same reasons why I'm not his sockpuppet. I’ve never before come across AndyTheGrump and have no idea who or even where he is, and have no activity overlap with him except on this page. I am also clearly not a 'person with a red IP address', as IP addresses do not contain letters. 'a', for example, is a letter. As for the 'red', I never saw the need to have my own user page (if I had my username would be blue), but frankly I don't think I need to justify that to you. Even if I were 'a red IP address', that would hardly be a reason to accuse me of anything just because I commented on a racist remark. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zedshort, can you tell us how the fuck you know what my 'roots' are, and how this is in any way relevant to an AfD on the E-Cat? That you resort to pig-ignorant racist personal attacks to defend your position can only discredit your cause even further. I assume that the closing admin will take your obvious non-compliance with Wikipedia policy, (and with basic standards of human dignity) into account, and ignore them for the garbage that they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major problem with your contributions! They antagonise others and result in confrontation. If you could hold back on your sarcasm and discuss things in a civil manner without recourse to swearing then it would go a long way to making this discussion less heated. Tmccc (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not seem to understand the concept of sockpuppetry. A sockpuppet is an account created by a user also using another account for the purpose of faking consensus. It would be very unusual for a person to use a sockpuppet to oppose their own views. If you were to read the whole discussion thread, you would see that I have (very early on) taken the opposite stance to Andy's 'delete' view. It would also be odd for a sockpupppet to be used to argue with oneself, as Andy and I have done previously. I am not a fan of Andy's view or arguments, but I respect them. If you would like to become your own sockpuppet, simply create a second user account and use it to support your own views in a discussion. Note, however, that this is strongly discouraged by WP policies, as is any form of racial stereotyping. I have not contributed to this thread any further over the last couple of days as I have already done so exhaustively, and have nothing further to add. This may be why it appears to you that I 'popped in and out very quickly' if you didn't read the whole thread. Reading the whole discussion is usualy a good idea as it helps prevent unnecessary repetition of points that were already raised. If you used 'Teutonic' as a disparaging term without being aware of what it meant or why it might be offensive, please have a look at Teutonic. I am sure you didn't mean to cause offence (to anyone but Andy). If you have further questions, please ask. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite self proclaims that he is an expert on detecting vote-stacking
- Carrite has no credentials proclaiming him as an expert on vote-stacking
Carrite concludes that a large number of keep voters use non-standard language
- that's an exaggeration and generalisation, most keep voters use perfectly normal language to elaborate their viewpoint.
- non-standard language is not prohibited on wikipedia. It is fair to assume that this article draws a lot of attention from native Italian speaking contributers.
Carrite concludes that users of non-standard language are sock puppets, meat puppets
- That conclusion is very, very disrespectful towards all contributers throughout wikipedia who are non native speakers.

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the E-Cat is either bad science or a hoax. Nevertheless it is interesting, at least for entertainment, like e. g. the bending of spoons by telekinesis by Uri Geller or the UFO contactees George Adamski and Billy Meier. My critical views on the E-cat can be found here: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667 (will soon be on-line). In my opinion Rossi's experiment lacks of controls (the heat flow was measured only once before the experiment), gives insuficient information (how were the isotope intensities measured, i. e. details of the method are required), and includes too much secrecy (what is the secret catalyst?), just like occultism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.189.249 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kuhne, please note that "occultism" and "trade secret" are not synonyms. AnnaBennett (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be plenty of secondary sources about this. Here's a sampling I found in just a couple minutes of Googling: Forbes, Popular Science, Network World, Science News, The Scotsman, etc. I'm sure there are more if I spent more time looking for them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a lot of policies that we can haggle over. However, on the top level, only WP:V speaks directly to "inclusion" and the topic does satisfy this policy. Definitions of pseudoscience aside, I am not convinced we have policy that would clearly support exclusion. All other concerns are best addressed on the article talk page. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT- particularly WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:CRYSTALBALL etc, etc, etc. Or don't. Frankly, if Wikipedia wants to become a free web-hosting site for snake-oil salesmen, hucksters, and other purveyors of whatever hogwash will earn them a profit, then fine. Just remove the description 'encyclopaedia' from the main page (and everywhere else), on the basis that there is no verifiable source for it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That the e-cat is a textbook example of pseudoscience and that the sources only relay Rossi's claims is a very strong argument for stubification and possible merger, etc. I just can't support them as reasons for deletion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on a source. A lot seems to derive from something called Ny Teknik. Wikipedia (not a reliable source, of course) says of this: a weekly Swedish newspaper with news, debates and ads in the field of technology and engineering. It is distributed to all members of The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers. Assuming that this is true, what do the majority of the members then do with it? Do they read it before using it as kindling or whatever? Here is its publisher's page about it; on the front page of the issue illustrated, the main stories seem to be about Swedish banknotes and the Batmobile. (NB I cannot read Swedish.) And it's not even alleged that this is a magazine for scientists; instead one for engineers. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. I'd say that judging from the content, they seem to be a reliable source for articles on mainstream technology (one would assume that their readers would notice if they weren't), but that they are hopelessly out of their depth with the E-Cat (they admit as much themselves). This wouldn't matter particularly were it not for a great deal of evidence that the rest of the media frenzy around the E-Cat is sources either from Ny Teknik, or from our article (note the almost complete absence of any significant independent data in other mainstream sources). Basically, far too much of this article is derived from a source that only got involved in the first place because of the enthusiasm of a handful of journalists - and they seem to have become increasingly entangled with Rossi's publicity machine, to the extent that they aren't just reporting events, they are participating in them - making measurements during 'demonstrations' for example. To their credit, they have acknowledged that their reports aren't adequate to assess the E-Cat, which obviously needs proper independent testing, but others seem content to ignore such provisos, and recycle their reports without the disclaimers. Not a pretty sight... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Others' stupidity is hardly this magazine's fault, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on windiness and smoke: This article is bizarre. A screenful is taken up by 5 Commercial plans / 5.1 Defkalion / 5.2 AmpEnergo / 5.3 Undisclosed customer. In another article, this might be OK, but here it all seems to boil down to None has yet been sold, and there is no solid evidence that any sale is forthcoming. Which itself is uninteresting, as this, um, technology has so far only been trumpeted for less than one year. Why all this talk about, essentially, nothing? Could it be: In order to give the impression to the careless, impressionable reader that hard-headed, no-nonsense, concerned-with-the-bottom-line corporations believe in the technology? Or: "Let's create smoke; the reader may imagine fire"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim of a sale to the undisclosed customer, the cooperation with Defkalion was stoppped as is readable from the text. AmpEnergo is not so much a customer but a sales partner. It is unfortunate that you read this section as trying to impress the careless reader, because that is not what most editors are trying to achieve. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pseudoscience, scam or ground breaking technology, this subject is generating interest in the mass media and general public and qualifies as notable. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I concur with many of the comments above regarding the content and quality of the article, if this article is deleted, shouldn't also all references to Fleischman and Pons be deleted from Wikipedia, as mainstream science has discredited the results due to lack of theory and reproducability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonzo (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wtshymanski has asserted that the Energy Catalyzer is a "scam" and that it "should not have an independent article". Wtshymanski has recommended that the article about the E-Cat be deleted.

Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-Cat, asserts that the E-Cat produces more energy than it consumes. However, he has declined to give complete details about his invention in order to protect his intellectual property.

Dr. George Miley has publicly stated that he and his associates have built a “generalized heat source” that "can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts"(http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/mr-rossi-goes-to-market-dr-miley-and-others-hope-to-follow/). Dr. Miley asserts that this generalized heat source generates heat by low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Dr. Miley is a well-respected scientist and, based on his report, I am willing to give Andrea Rossi the benefit of the doubt — for the next six months. During that time, he will probably sell one or more additional 1 megawatt E-Cats and, as his patent applications are approved, he will be able to disclose more details about his invention. At that point, scientists will be able to build or buy E-Cats and verify Rossi's claims.

I recommend that this AfD be closed now. AnnaBennett (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping sources here, some comments:

Popular Science [28] good, but 10 months old

Wired [29][30][31]

Science Reporter (magazine) [32]

Focus (Italian magazine) [33][34][35][36][37][38][39]

Italian newspapers,
La Stampa [40] [41],
Il Sole 24 Ore [42] [43],
La Repubblica [44],
Il Tempo [45],
Il Resto del Carlino [46],
Il Fatto Quotidiano [47]

Italian newsmagazines,
Oggi, "Fusione Fredda. Ecco la macchina dell'energia pulita" p. 1 2 3,
Panorama "Parla lo scienziato che ha inventato la fusione nucleare a freddo" "Fusione nucleare a freddo: i dubbi del fisico Antonio Zoccoli"

Italian State-owned national television stations (Rai),
Rai 2 on TG2 (State-owned news programme, very important in Italy) reports on the E-Cat during national edition [48],
Rai News (24-hour all-news State-owned television channel)
1) a 25-minute television documentary [49]
2) in-depth interviews with Professor Sergio Focardi, other scientists and patents experts about the E-Cat [50] [51]
( NOTE: Italian national TV stations added by me.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Italian national radio stations,
State-owned Radio 1 [52] a 4-minute interview,
State-owned Radio 2 [53] Fusione Fredda/ Rai radio2 intervista,
Confindustria's Radio 24, Il ritorno della fusione fredda Fusione fredda: una possibile spiegazione
( NOTE: Italian national radio stations added by me.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) ) 79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telepolis (German) Kalte Fusion in der Black Box? ).

Makedonia (newspaper) (Greek) [54]

financial newspaper Express (Greek) Επένδυση 200 εκατ. στην Ξάνθη για «πράσινη» ενέργεια

State-owned New Hellenic Television ‬.

Networkworld [55] computing-related magazine, not appropiate for science claims

Fox News [56][57]

Washington Times [58], 8 months old

Discovery News Cold Fusion Claims Resurface

Coast to Coast AM Rossi Cold Fusion Device.

Voice of Russia Cold fusion: reality or utopia?: Voice of Russia.

Tehran Times [59]

Scotsman [60] Google points to the wrong page, the real article must be offline. If someone is suscribed, please search for "Andrea Rossi" and send me a copy of the article.

Forbes [61][62][63] blogs hosted at Forbes? Do they have editorial control?

American Chronicle [64] no editorial control

Science News [65] only mentioned in comments to the article

e-catworld.com, ecatnews.com, ecatsite.wordpress.com Promotional websites, maybe part of a marketing campaign, who knows.

peswiki.com no editorial control, (mostly uncritical) coverage of fringe science, borders on promotional

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - THE ABOVE POST HAS BEEN EDITED BY ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO GUIDELINES AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops... Sorry, I thought it was a list that was open to contributions from other users.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail [66]

Falls Church News [67]

msnbc [68]

CBS News [69]

Dutch national TV [70], Labyrint

Major German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [71]

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 'Falls Church News' article cites Wikipedia as a source, as has already been pointed out. [72]. This sloppy attitude to sourcing is one of the main reasons the article is such a mess - and if you remove the questionable sources, what is actually left? The word of the 'inventor', Rossi, that his device (whatever it is) works, and a list of his performances/demonstrations, together with a pile of empty speculation. I simply can't see how this can be turned into an encyclopaedic article without contravening WP:FRINGE, WP:NOT etc - there just isn't enough verifiable evidence for anything beyond Rossi's hype and spin - which Wikipedia is becoming a significant player in. If (as seems highly probable), this is a hoax, we aren't just reporting it - we are actually perpetuating it ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Falls Church News did not state that it used Wikipedia as a source but only invited the reader here for further reading: "If you are interested in the details of all this, the account in Wikipedia under "Energy Catalyzer" gives a reasonably balanced version of the story thus far." You are making assumptions about what the writer used as a source. Zedshort (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I'm making assumptions about 'what the writer used as a source' based on what the writer refers to as the source for his 'balanced version'. Of course, if you can provide evidence that this local-paper journalist went all the way to Italy to interview Rossi, we can perhaps reconsider this source as being more than what it appears to be - recycled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FRINGE "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." This is not a subject within another article. You referenced WP:NOT and that does not apply perhaps you meant WP:NOTE: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This subject has been around for years and the foundation cold fusion has been around even longer and the two have become increasingly topical, and important for too many reasons to list. Zedshort (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with the fact that people are using an article (from an obscure local paper) sourced from Wikipedia to assert 'notability'? And no, I meant : not a newspaper, not a blog, not advertising, not... well, not worthy of anything that calls itself 'an encyclopedia', unless citing ourselves as a reliable source has suddenly become policy. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Strong Keep Removing this article would not be an error: it will be a fault. A lot of people are ennoyed because they cannot reproduce this device. ( Me the first ! ) That is a fact that the patent is not sufficient to make one: some it's features are protected by the secret: try once to build a B-2 bomber or an atomic bomb with the public patents and press pictures: it will be at least so difficult ! But, working as described or not, this device exist: it's a fact ! A lot of people are speaking about it, it's possible to order one. Perhaps most of people doesn't like Mr Rossi's communication strategy: that's their right, that his choice ! First, you cannot delete this article exactly as you cannot delete the articles: perpetual movement, phantom, ectoplasm, spiritism, aso ! If you delete this article, perhaps you have also to delete the article on God or Satan ! You can only inform that the system is doubtful for specific reasons ! ( and precise these reasons ) Second: this device is perhaps the most annoyng device of History for both petrol and nuclear industry. For that reason: the article must stay. And perhaps,in a few months, if somebody proves seriously that this device doesn't work , precise in the item that it was a fraud... ( Fraud, but existing ! ) --Bmrpire (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proposal. Because of the Afd procedure was first closed and then reopened, I propose to keep the procedure open for other 10 days in order to be 100% sure to thoroughly discuss all the matters involved in a proper way.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no new information being presented or new arguments being offered. I seriously don't understand why this AfD was re-opened, and what is happening here in terms of pushing to get this article deleted. Another ten days is not going to be changing minds, unless there is a serious issue under dispute. The only thing being argued right now is if Rossi is a fraud and that this device may or may not actually exist. That is not a legitimate rationale for article deletion. If you have something to bring forward, a rationale for deletion based upon policy, cite the policy and discuss why in your opinion it should be deleted. Re-opening a closed discussion like this is flat-out wrong and should not have happened. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea. We'll follow the recommendation of User:TenOfAllTrades made at WP:FTN and redirect to Andrea Rossi. Close this waste-of-time AfD. We might as well do this now and avoid the endless and pointless debates. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alreardy discussed above. Two different subjects. Moreover the Energy Catalyzer was developed as a joint work by Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi.

--79.16.129.195 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate as WP:TOOSOON. Until there's a concensus as to whether this is real and hoax or something else, it's not encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon for what exactly? It could be real, it could be a hoax (likely), but either one wouldn't change the notability of it. The clear list of sources up above shows that the subject of the E-Cat is notable. Do you have an argument for why those sources don't show that? Silver seren^C 06:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL. There has been no serious reporting of this so far in the scientific literature. All those reading the endorsements by Brian Josephson should take into account what has happened in the past with telepathy, cold fusion [73] and water memory [74]. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"strong keep" For several important resons; Just possibly the single most important discovery in recent times, the importance of free impartial discussion and a free democratic medi a-(such as wiki could claim to be), as far as Focardi is concerned this interesting phenomena has been studied and mused over for approx 20 years, by several different scientific camps-and all concluded there was a genuine/ unexplainable reaction. At the very least this article needs to be kept until such time as the decision has been made by the scientific community as to this generators validity-it provides an excellent way of understanding the history and circumstances of E-Cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.97.122 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — 42.241.97.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This 'discussion' should never have been reopened. No new points are being brought forward, and it's going around in circles. One useful thing to come out of it is POVbrigand's long list of available sources, including major publications such as la Repubblica, Daily Mail, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The only challenged source seems to be some small paper called 'Church Falls News'. A lot of the articles present balanced views and are suitable sources for both sides of the argument that seems to be at the heart of this discussion (i.e. the eCat does/doesn't work). I really fail to understand the argument against it being notable. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Black Kite (t) 01:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. Disputed prod. References show she has been published not that she is notable. noq (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, anyone who has five published books is notable. Also, I looked at your history. You seem to spend most of your time deleting other people's work, often over loud objections. How many books have you had published? Karen Anne (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you read the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. It does not state that publishing a book is in itself notable. How does she meet the guidelines? noq (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does another user's history or the number of books that another user has published have to do with whether or not Amy Lake is a notable person? Please keep comments like that off of these pages. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five books in the genre is a significant contribution #3.

Karen Anne (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. General notability guideline - No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Uncertain. The notability will depend on whether there are substantial 3rd party reviews. It's possible. Worldcat shows about 212 holdings for Lady Pamela , and over 100 for Earl's Wife and Carriagemaker's daughter, which is medium-low for this genre. It does not list the other two, which are avail on the Kindle only and might count as self-published. ~— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 October 2011‎ (UTC) [reply]
Delete, no notability, no reliable sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Her books are currently being reissued and were formerly out of print. How am I supposed to find reviews from years ago. The fact that they are being reprinted indicates that someone in the profession thinks they are worthwhile. They are being reissued by www.regencyreads.com (Belgrave House), which as far as I can tell is not Amy Lake, hence not self-published. That web site appears to handle apparently 50 or so other authors. It specifically says it accepts as submissions for its ebooks only books that were previously paper published. And I reserve the right to comment on someone who seems to view his role as deleting the work of others rather than producing any work of his own. Just look at his talk page for others comments about this.

Karen Anne (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Please only !vote once. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  By the way, "review from years ago" would not qualify as reliable sources. The article is about the person, not the books, so reviews wouldn't do any good as far as building a biography. In addition, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Personal attacks on other editors are not tolerated on Wikipdia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General notability guideline - No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lack of consistency in your requests. One says get reviews of her books, another says those don't matter because the article is about the person. Well, the article is here because the person is an author. And I can hardly do anything about the fact that the books are ten years old. However, there is a favorable review by Harriet Klausner, who has her own Wikipedia entry, and therefore is presumably blessed by the Gods as a person of significance, at http://www.amazon.com/Pamela-Standard-Print-First-Romance/product-reviews/0786242329/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 If you think my comments about Nog do not meet Wikipedia standards, you ought to take a look at his Talk page, some of the comments there make me look complimentary.

Karen Anne (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. That someone is an author is not a claim of notability; everyone has a job, and "author" is not inherently notable. As such, there is no claim of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not qualify under the notability standards of either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, and no independent reliable sources are cited in the article. —teb728 t c 23:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Eraser and the Wikipedia boy's club win. I'm sure if this were an article about a male writing mysteries, no one would have proposed it for deletion. Bathe in your testosterone, folks. I'm off to delete all my contributions and then close my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Anne (talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Articles for Deletion, I find a number of male mystery writers whose pages have been nominated and even deleted. As such, consistency on that level is not a problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable author; gender and genre of the author are irrelevant, in spite of personal insinuations by an editor who has made several useful contributions in the past. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-notable author and the publisher is equally non-notable, although even being published by a major house doesn't mean notability. Getting reviewed by the extremely dubious Harriet Klausner doesn't give you notability either. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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.

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 keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. It appears that sources have been found establishing the topic's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matta,sindh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only given reference does not mention him. No indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I edited the article, changed its name to Matta (chief), and changed the references section appropriately. The book mentioned does give the story of Matta. DCItalk 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why (as per talk page and notability guidelines):
- No original research is needed; there are published sources that discuss Matta. Some of these are even available on the web.
- The person about whom the article is written was fairly notable in his time. He was a (not so adept) military commander and political schemer, whose actions would have had potentially major effects.
- The book used as the article's source, "A History of India, as Told By its Own Historians," is not a primary source.
- On Talk:Matta (chief), the article's creator and main contributor explains that he needs a little time to improve the article.

Thanks, DCItalk 23:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : In-spite of the above facts I do not think Matta needs an article on it-self. There are many such persons whose name may appear in History of India, that does not mean each one qualifies for notability. The article of Matta can be added to Chach of Alor rather.Jethwarp (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point, but believe that the article meets notability requirements. The author has stated on the talk page that he needs a little time to improve it, so let's give him some time and keep the article. It doesn't harm the encyclopedia, at least in my eyes. DCItalk 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that author has no more info to write on this page. Jethwarp (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the general notability guideline with significant coverage in independent reliable sources found here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Look, the article when nominated made a claim to notability, i.e., that he was a political leader. The fact that the sole source did or didn't cite him doesn't mean the subject is not notable. You have to nominate based on lack of notability by making an affirmative assertion that he's not notable, not that you have no idea. If you have no idea, move on to nominating nonsense articles and vandalism and leave these to someone else to look at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my comment reads harsher than intended, i do get quite irritated when I see AfDs that I perceive shouldn't have happened.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is his position as chief not equal to that of a mayor of a modern city? Dream Focus 04:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and the arguments above , a political title is of signifigant importance to this website. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Laiho Trio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musical group lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you checked Google Books? A search on Laiho Trio accordion turns up a significant number of Snippet views of publications from the 1970s and 80s. These and the sources listed in the article are pre-Internet-Age and therefore less easy to verify, but they indicate evidence meriting further investigation. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are book mentions, and this WILL be a harder article to source due to the period, but there are some to be found. The real problem is the current article is full of original research and unsourced information, which is obviously never a valid reason to delete and not the reason stated by the nom. While the nomination was obviously in good faith (refs ARE hard to find, article needs work badly), there likely exists in newspapers, plenty of articles. WP:V requires that the information CAN BE verified, not that every detail IS verified, and with that in mind, I think we have to keep it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I tagged this one for rescue, as after a few minutes of searching, I'm pretty confident that sources can be found by someone more familiar with the topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Note If this article were to be deleted (Not likely, but still) I would request it be userfied to the original contributor, as it is being actively worked on and sources are very likely, even if not quick to materialize. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Were they called the Laiho Trio or the Laiho Brothers[75]? The New York Times has an article about their appearance on a radio program[76] but you have to pay to read it. I Google news archive searched for "Altti" "Veikko" "Pentti" "Laiho" to find it. The article says they were reviewed in a magazine called International Musician. Searching for "Laiho" "accordion" has results. The New York Times called them "LAIHO BROTHERS, accordion trio". Veikko Laiho is mentioned at [77]. Keep because of the coverage in a notable magazine, and I believe they got some attention elsewhere. Dream Focus 11:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creator, Sireti-3 (talk · contribs), has helpfully scanned some articles about the Trio:
- "The Laiho Trio – The First Three Accordion Symphonists". International Musician. October 1990. at [78] and [79].
- Hanna, Charlie (December 23, 1968). "Unusual Concert Linked To Finnish Trio's Bid To Remain In U.S." The Oregonian.

Sireti-3 has said that s/he has found "nearly 20" articles about the Trio, and considering the high caliber of the sources above, I trust that those articles contain in-depth coverage of the Trio. The Trio sufficiently meets the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 WrestleMania XXVIII. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock vs John Cena

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and I can't find a source - except for an event between thest two April 1st 2012 in Miami Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WrestleMania XXVIII. Lugnuts (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WrestleMania XXVIII as Lugnuts suggested. Why? Well, first of all, WP:EFFECT. It's a professional wrestling match, one match within a stable. By the sounds of it, it has been hyped into oblivion by the promoter: that's what promoters do. But will it have a lasting effect as WP:EFFECT suggests it needs to have? It is too early to tell (WP:CRYSTAL!) but even if we allow the crystal ball speculation, when was the last time a professional wrestling match had a lasting effect on the world qua its status as a wrestling match. It may go above and beyond that if something happens, but we'll have to wait for that. If it does become the defining moment of professional wrestling history, it can be restored at the refund desk. Until then, a redirect would be better. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menorah Number Theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by IP. Seems to be a non-notable theory of the author's own invention. None of the alleged references or external links seems to be relevant to establishing its notability. Google Books and Scholar come up blank making it unverifiable and, almost certainly, original research. DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's any doubt it's OR, consider that the article's author describes hinself as, "Independent Researcher, Department Member, Menorah Number Theory Department (Menorah Number Theory and Sunspots)" at Academia.edu, "a place to share and follow research" [80]. EEng (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable term which has no grounds for an article. The term appears to have been invented by the article creator. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention of the phrase anywhere seems to be at Academia.edu on what I assume is the originator's profile. There are no independent descriptions anywhere, as far as I can see this is a pretty clear case of OR. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, I could go on but I'd be parroting those above me, so "per" etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 per criterion G3. At this moment, the article is nothing more than unsourced speculation which is not verifiable on the web. Materialscientist (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers: Ultra Megaforce

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. No evidence that this is notable. (PROD contested with no reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Unabashed WP:CRYSTAL violation based on fandom rumors, bordering on being a flat out hoax. The less time this is on Wikipedia, the better.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have discovered that this editor has added two different versions of this page to the Spanish Wikipedia, and have collaborated with an administrator there to have them removed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private placement platform

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article, has been kicking around for a couple of years, orphaned, and appears to be a spam magnet. Discovered this while Huggling when it was one long advertisement. Now stubbified. A search of Google News shows one Reuters news story from 2007, concerning a venture not mentioned in this article and unclear if there are more than that, suggesting that the topic simply does not meet notability criteria. Created by an SPA; original version itself questioned notability, saying "real programs are out there, finding them is the hard part." Should be deleted or merged with private placement. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Here is an explanation of them, not sure how common they are tho. [81] Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. (The "explanation" linked by Mangoe is a paper written by the marketing director of a business trading in the area. It is not substantial coverage.) The history of the article is full of spam, unattributed opinion, copyright violation, and downright lies. The versions of it which are free from such problems have very little useful content, and the article has never been sourced. In short, there is absolutely nothing worth keeping, and, since there is no evidence of notability, it should go. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources cited, and nothing indicates that the term has widespread use. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decillennium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

random collection of statements based around a dictionary definition. No sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of widespread use of this neologism. Originally the article consisted of just a dictionary definition, and then, after it had been proposed for deletion with "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" given as one of the reasons, the article was rewritten to add a string of random remarks, many of them using the word "decillennium". These remarks form no coherent whole, they are completely unsourced, several of them refer not to "decillennia", but only to millennia, even those which do refer to "decillennia" are not about "decillennia", but about other things and happen to mention "decillennia". In fact, the only part of the article which is actually about the concept "decillennium" is the first sentence, which is the dictionary definition which formed the original text of the article. Delete, delete, delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with everything JamesBWatson says. This is a pure DICTDEF with a couple sentences worth of trivia added on which fails to make it any more encyclopedic (and which has only a verrrry tenuous link to the actual subject of the article anyway!) --Miskwito (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-glaring headlamp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unsure if this article is really suitable for an encyclopedia. I could find no evidence that this headlamp was actually ever implemented by any car manufacturer. A web search shows that numerous inventors other than the one mentioned here make similar claims, so the article is also a bit misleading. Apart from that, the article doesn't add much beyond what is obvious from the title itself ('... is a headlamp... ...without glaring effects.'), and reads more like a dictionary entry. My main concern though is that it seems to be a purely theoretical invention with little appliction. If this technology is actually being used in a real car, I would support keeping the text, but merged with headlamp. Otherwise it is just another unused invention amongst many similar ones 109a152a8a146 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete patent that went nowhere. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-glaring headlamps in general would be an interesting topic, with a history that goes back to the 1920s. This one though is just spam of one recent and non-notable invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in the Arab League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List if redundant. We have List of modern conflicts in the Middle East and List of modern conflicts in North Africa - inappropriate to use political organization to stand in for geographic area. – Richard BB 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Arab League is distinct from the Middle East and North Africa. --لا رقابة (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- However, much of the information in this article simply duplicates the information in the other articles. – Richard BB 13:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would only be redundant if it duplicated one other list. Overlapping two is not a valid reason to delete it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark N Greene

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:Bio; the only apparent 3d party coverage consists of two brief squib entries lacking in meaningful depth or breadth. JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. I was too hasty - he seems to have a good bit of coverage under News, above. If I could figure out how to undo all of this I would, but an admin should simply close it out. I apologize for taking up everyone's time. JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. Tone 13:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Andrade

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Vast majority of GNews hits on his name are pieces regarding his wife's death. Article in its current form is basically just a resume. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several of Mr. Andrade's voice characters are iconic, from nationally recognized brands ("Pop" in the Rice Crispies ads), top selling video games (Scarecrow in Batman: Arkham Asylum), and/or internationally known game franchises (World of Warcraft). Moreover, the Soulgeek.com dating site he founded is one of the biggest "geek" centered dating sites on the web, boasting more than 15,000 members (See related article: Geeks Gettin’ Lucky? SoulGeek: A Dating Site For Geek Girls & Guys). His first wife's death was a shock and a tragedy in the animation world, which garnered much publicity. Hence, the profusion of articles related to it and the resulting plethora of GNews hits. But this personal tragedy does not preclude the facts that Dino Andrade is a voice actor with major credits to his name and successful web entrepreneur in his own right. He is of more significance than just a notable widower. Article needs to be updated, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TweetLvr (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — TweetLvr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I understand your desire to see the article live on, but if he's as notable as you claim, surely appropriate coverage can be found (and no, I don't think geeksofdoom.com quite cuts it). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, Michael Jackson is famous for having botox injections in his crotch and for being dead (such are the search results one gets for Googling the man's name). Andrade's works are notable enough, I think, to merit this entry. --Hullubulloo (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By my logic, Michael Jackson is notable because a massive number of sources over several decades can be found on him. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is acknowledged that this article needs additional content and references, but should not be deleted. I would cite many of the same reasons as the previous vote for the entry that Mr. Andrade is a notable figure within the voice acting community, as well as owner of a popular dating website.Aaron Matthew Kaiser (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't say more other than to echo the previous sentiments, but Mr. Andrade is a prominent and active voiceover artist in addition to his notable accomplishments with SoulGeek. His career more than warrants its own page, and to delete it would be a grievous error. — Preceding unsigned comment added byAdam Rebottaro (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Darkseider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Dino's work is varied, interesting and important enough to justify his entry. --Hullubulloo (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dino is a well known and popular Voice Actor, ask any Warcraft player what they feel about dino's work. Since everyone likes to quote Professor Putricide. --Gothicshark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC). — Gothicshark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I'm relisting due to lack of policy-based arguments

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GNG is set to guide on notability when we have SIGCOV. The SNGs are set to guide on notability when SIGCOV is lacking. Both are parts of WP:N and are not intended as mutually exclusionary. In meeting WP:CREATIVE and WP:V, the results of his creative efforts have themselves been the recipients of commentary in multiple reliable sources. And the fellow IS written about in multiple sources,[82][83] and so we DO have a strong push at SIGCOV as well. Perceived article issues are addressable and do not mandate deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bedan Plus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a non-notable self-published college magazine. The lack of sources means the content is unverifiable by readers. Lots of personal opinions and original research. Prod was contested, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the official website is actually a Facebook page. Promotional at best, without any hint of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Apancho

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General notability guideline - no significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. The only source simply lists the subject's name on a list of competitors. Neutrality^talk 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source confirms that the subject played in a world championship, passing WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

(1) The sports guideline that doesn't override the General Notability Guideline. Is there any "significant coverage [from] sources" that "address the subject directly in detail"? Significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention." I cannot find any such material. He is just one name on a list, with a handful of passing mentions in blogs and trade publications.We do not even basis bio items like age or date or birth, place of birth, or hometown. This individual went to the competition a single time and did not place. All of this weighs against notability.

(2) Even if we accept the sports guideline: If you look at the top of the page, notability requires sources that "provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." Here, the minimal coverage that exists is clearly routine. The guideline also states that participants in "major international amateur or professional competitions, such as the Olympics" are considered notable. The "WPA World Nine-ball Championship" is probably not a "major" competition, certainly nothing like the Olympics. For example, the Championship wasn't even played in 2008 or 2009; I think irregular or sporadic competition indicates that it is not truly a major competition. Neutrality^talk 07:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The GNG sum up the basic criteria for inclusion, which are only specified by the sports guideline. It's impossible to argue that a person who would satisfy any one of these more specific criteria is still non-notable when concerning the GNG. Also, the section of the sports guideline you're referring to is just a further commentary on applying the GNG to sports-related articles, meant to avoid heavy appliance of the GNG in cases that would clearly fail the sports-related citeria. That said, I would rather consider this case to be the opposite of that: A person who might be notable (it's the official world championship of a sport approved by the IOC, the overall prize money was $400,000 that year (comparable to, say, a lower ATP tour tournaments), and it was captured on TV — that's certainly a "major" competition), but isn't covered by any non-trivial external sources. So, while I personally wouldn't mind this article to be deleted, your reasoning is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what do you mean by "did not place"? It's a knock-out stage, so he automatically shared 17th place with all players that lost in the round of 32. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable. No significant coverage. Davidelit (Talk) 03:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again: It's insufficent to argue that a person doesn't pass the GNG if he passes the sports guideline, because they're not contradictory. If he has taken part in a professional tournament like the ones mentioned in that guideline (and he has done so), he is notable, period. If there is no "significant coverage", the article may still be deleted because it's impossible to provide at least the basic personal data, but that's not an issue of notability in itself. In fact, considering the OP's false claims (of course, Apancho did "place" in the competition), his total concealment on there having been a first AfD discussion, and his and your try to twist the guidelines in a way they cannot bear, lead me to assuming rather bad faith being at work here, even if I support deleting an article that is nothing else than a data bank entry written in prose, of which, however, we have thousands without anyone doubting their respective subjects' notability. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Concealment on there having been a first AfD"? What are you talking about? The first AfD has been listed on the sidebar from the creation of the AfD, and it's called "Roy Apancho 2" at the top. Get a grip. Neutrality^talk 03:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know there has been a first discussion that resulted in the article being kept, then your task is to provide additional reasons going beyond the first discussion. A bare mentioning in the sidebar isn't enough. And if you think the article was wrongfully kept, then a deletion review would be more appropriate. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage found, although it is clear that he reached 17th. As he didn't reach the finals I don't think that is enough notability to pass WP:ATHLETE. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "didn't reach the finals"? In a knock-out competition there's only one final, and only two players reach it. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't reach the finals, didn't reach the semi-finals, didn't reach the quarter finals, and didn't reach... the name escapes me right now (octa-finals?). That's far enough from the top that I don't consider it an automatic assumption of notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable sportsman, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Faith Church, Hungary. I'm going with the vote from the only established user Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hetek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hetek is only one Hungarian congregation periodical. Even in Hungary it is not famous. Kerdezo (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some 8 references to it in WP articles. It is much more known than the other congregational weeklies. Keep. Nedudgi (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" is not our standard for inclusion, and the fact that other congregational periodicals exist is irrelevent to whether we should delete this article. Could we please have a deletion rationale based on our policies and guidelines? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think very few Hungarian weeklies should have enwiki article. And Hetek is definitelly not among them, because non of any religious should. But let's see other opinions. --Kerdezo (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Kerdezo. We should not have article about local religious weeklies. Euty (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I am Hungarian, I agree with that Hetek should not need English article. --Tomoceusztakatiti (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Euty and Tomoceusztakatiti are Confirmed by checkuser evidence as being the same user. AGK [•] 23:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Faith Church, Hungary. I have the impression that it might actually be notable, but I can't find any supersources to support that. There's is this paper [84] that focuses on the subject. Some of the content is referenced to Wikipedia, but the other reference is (copy-paste) "Szobota István (2006) A márka- és imázsépítés lehetőségei a magyar lappiacon – A Hetek, pp 1-56", perhaps someone who speaks Hungarian could provide more details on it. Other than that, there are some passing mentions [85] [86] [87] [88] [89], but that's all — frankie (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I still beleive. On the other hand FC is a long story. One can merge, if you like. Anyway, thanks for this thesis. Especially, for Section 3.3 ("... how SN can manipulate or invoke religious sensation.") Kerdezo (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find somewhat strange that the opinion of Kerdezo expplicitly contradicts the Hungarian Wiki page on Hetek, which claims that it is a knowledgable, important publication, in the leage HVG, Heti Válasz, 168 Óra, Magyar Narancs, and Élet és Irodalom, all widely read serious weeklies. Why did he not change the Hungarian article? Nedudgi (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, My Dear, patience. I certainly will. Now I only have put a couple of source needed sings there. The problem is, if one delete every sentence which has no independent source, there remains nothing. And I am not such a fun for deletion. I can pateintly wait some weeks. However as you suggest, I will certainly delete everything which would not have source. Kerdezo (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read my note about the only opponent. Euty (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Euty. It is important to know that Nedudgi is a Hungarian sock puppet soldier. Kerdezo (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. postdlf (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April Masini

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author of non-notable website and books. All citations in the article are from her website, AskApril.com. Many of the claims in the article, such as "catalyst" behind Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, The Miss Universe pageant and the Hawaiian Governors Gala are actually attributed to Alfred Masini, as noted in independent sources. HNN New York Times Scanlan (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some articles that brush upon her claims, although many of them vary as far as how certain they are of how involved she really was. Most of them put far more emphasis on her husband being the deciding factor. [90], [91] I also want to note that she seems to be a mostly self-published author. The claims of notability are sort of vague, to be honest and probably could just be added to the Baywatch article. Most of her notability really seems to have stemmed from her being married to Mancini. After her divorce that notability sort of dried up, so I don't know how notable she is as far as she herself goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

If someone can find information to show that she's notable I'm persuadable, but other than her possible influence over Baywatch I can't see where she's really notable. Just about everything about her on the web is either her website or a promotional blurb. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show sources to back up your claims! All I've really found are articles that only mention her briefly, focus more on her husband, and/or are puff pieces. If you've got sources then you should post them. Just saying that a person is notable and that there's articles doesn't really make your case. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl. It's a borderline article, but I think it falls on the delete side of the border. —SW— ^gab 18:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tokyogirl is right here - while there are good-looking references such as USA Today, they actually only contain weak tangential mentions or small quotations, without doing much to confer notability. It's a bit of a borderline case because these are certainly sources, and she must have been notable enough to be quoted or interviewed, but it's all pretty flaky. If a single *good* source turns up, I'll be happy to change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General notability guideline - No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. m.o.p 05:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Ahmed Khalaf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability per WP:AUTHOR dubious. Main author User:طلال بن زيد is a single-purpose account (claims to be an admin, but isn't as far as I can see), possibly in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I checked a bunch of the links in the article via google-translate, and they appeared to be only to social-networking sites, directories of works, and/or open-editing sites. None appeared to be a WP:RS with in-depth coverage of the subject to prove WP:BIO notability rather than just "exists" (large number of cites to poor sites and large amount of poetry is not sufficient). One cite mentions that he is on wikipedia, so this account may even be author himself or a promoter/fan on/off-wiki feedback loop. DMacks (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough independent sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Ayman Ahmed Khalaf: a renowned poet in Egypt and 13 authors wrote poetry and participated in several cultural seminars in Egypt, my opinion remains that the article is not deleted Lila adam (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Ayman Ahmed Khalaf poet is one of the celebrities in Egypt and is the author of articles in several newspapers in Egypt and Ayman Ahmed Khalaf whose name is in the Encyclopedia of Arab films

( Arab cinema database) http://www.elcinema.com/person/pr1978206

And his name is in International database of films (Internet Movie Database) (IMDb) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4730962/

My opinion is that the article does not delete طلال بن زيد (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by طلال بن زيد (talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really need cites that specifically say he is a celebrity. IMD, despite its impressive-sounding name, is not acceptable as proof of notability, just as proof that he is a real person. This is the general problem here...lots of cites of specific writings, but none that he has won awards and no literary criticism that he is a famous, popular, or important writer. That's the whole WP:AUTHOR situation in a nutshell. DMacks (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ayman Ahmed Khalaf poet already known in Egypt, which is born of Sohag in Upper Egypt, and writes in the newspaper News of Sohag, and writes in the Journal of the Arab and co-author of two series com Sete (Tamer wa sHawkiah) and (ragel wa st-Stat)..I do not agree to delete the Article Hits girl (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hardly someone will compose such information for any reason. Common sense is good enough evidence. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Take in consideration that Internet access can be restricted in that region as in many countries of that part of the world. (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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.

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. Black Kite (t) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft that's managed to stick around since the earlier days of Wikipedia where such lists were commonplace and trivia was rampant. It has been mocked as one of "The Least Essential Wikipedia Pages" and casts a bad light on the project. Strong issues with notability, no references whatsoever, and virtually impossible to determine its completeness. Remurmur (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most if not all of the entries here are from major film or television productions, and should therefore be easy to source. Some crappy website mocking it is irrelevant. While this may be less clear cut than a list of portrayals of the president of the US, trimming and sourcing looks a better option than deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be sourced to primary sources for V, and the topic itself (fictional politicians) is clearly notable. I think the information could be presented in a good bit more succinct manner, but that's a cause for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is exactly is a list of vice-presidents that don't exist "clearly notable"? I can't even name a single fictional vice-president without consulting this list, as I can not recall such a character ever being important to the plot. Is there any reason for this to be seperate from the List of fictional politicians? (Which itself is of debatable notability, but is at least not of ridiculous specificity.) Do we want a list of fictional characters by every occupation? Are some fictional occupations more "notable" than others?--Remurmur (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. At least two come to mind: Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy character) and Glenn Close's character in Air Force One. That being said, I have no opinion on whether a separate list is desirable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This closed a keep in 2007, no sense rehashing, in my opinion. Pop-culture cruft, for sure, but we need to embrace that aspect of Wikipedia, in my view. In any event, Notability Is Not Temporary and this has already been debated and decided, so we should respect that. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The idea that, just because parent topic X is notable automatically makes List of X notable, has been thoroughly debunked. All topics (and lists are topics) require coverage in reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject of the topic. In the case of lists, this would require sources that discuss the list. In the case of pop culture and fiction, insisting on this is particularly important because otherwise we get a proliferation of badly sourced, fannish articles of dubious reliability, limited scope and minimal usefulness- just like this one. Lastly, Carrite is badly misunderstanding WP:NTEMP. That guideline means that a subject's notability doesn't decline just because no new sources mentioning it are appearing any longer; it does not mean Wikipedia cannot change its mind on whether a subject was notable in the first place. Reyk _YO! 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up and Merge as a sub-section of List of fictional Presidents of the United States. Make sure all of the names listed are valid, notable and sourced before merging. — Michael J 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, and the subject of this one does not meet the general notability guideline. This list goes against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information since the inclusion criteria is merely existing as a fictional Vice President, with no criteria to determine which characters are truly notable to merit being on the list, so I do not think that it is an appropriate list-topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since it falls into what what Wikipedia is not. Jfgslo (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonable index of encyclopedia topics. I'm concerned that the list may be too indiscriminate in how minor the characters are that it includes or how minor being VP is to that character (some are apparently characters who become vice presidents in alternate worlds or similar one-off stories). However, that's an issue for the scalpel of normal editing and discussion to address, not the sledgehammer of AFD. There are undoubtedly at least a few that merit their own articles or similar substantive treatment (particularly the West Wing characters), making this an index of article topics grouped by a defining characteristic (or an index of notable works of fiction that depict vice presidents). Insisting that the list itself be notable is neither necessary nor even a coherent way of analyzing it, when the article is not about a list, but the list format is simply being used to provide a navigational and browsing function. Whether fictional VPs that merit a mention are enough in number to justify a standalone list separate from List of fictional politicians or elsewhere is, yet again, something I would respect as an editing decision. postdlf (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per jfgslo. The topic as a whole is not notable. There are no sources that discuss the topic, resulting in a mess of WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Postdlf. Notable topic verifiable through multiple reliable sources. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the issue of reliable references is easily addressed. I just added one reference with a few seconds of research. The article seems otherwise sound. Mathewignash (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 SPEEDY DELETED by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

बाबू गुलाब सिंह

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non English article in English wiki. Pearll's Sun^TALK 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not English. Warden (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not English. May be notable if it could be better translated. Joefridayquaker (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmoscopic scale

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This orphaned article has been tagged as unsourced since March 2010 and it fails WP:GNG. I can find no reliable references to this measurement and the term doesn't appear to be employed in astronomy. I can locate a Huang Guoyou, but no association between him and this term. The article was de-PROD'd back in March 2010 with the claim that the unit is covered by a book. I checked that book but could not find a match on a search. There is a book reference to a "cosmoscopic domain" on the talk page, but not to a "cosmoscopic scale". There's no apparent reason to merge. Hence I'm proposing deletion. Regards, RJH (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a Neologism with extremely weak coverage on Google. I couldn't find anything solid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lack of book hits fatal for terminology such as this. Mangoe (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Tone 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Mechanics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability requirements and is borderline advertising. Deletion proposal tag was removed by anonymous user and replaced by bot which was again removed by anonymous user. Nominating for deletion. Tejanse (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference provided is a press release which does not establish notability because it is not independent. The press release must not have worked, because the Google News Archive shows no coverage of the company. Therefore, it is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Cullen. Article is about an engineering company that specializes in building machines and providing automation/equipment integration services within the solar photovoltaic industry. Note that SolarPark Manufacturing Equipment, Ltd. should face the same fate as this article, as it is the previous name for the same business. That too is referenced only to a single routine story announcing the opening of a joint venture facility. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason stated above; another name for the same business:

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.

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. Tone 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettotizer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEO... doesn't fit CSD criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google hits at all, quite possibly a hoax. Not even in Webster's dictionary or Britannica. Joefridayquaker (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. No references provided and no reliable sources to be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G3 hoax →Σ τ c. 06:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but with the current state of CSD they're pretty dogmatic. I wish it were different, but here we are. Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a hoax. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; all sorts of policies once could cite. Neologism that seems to have been invented by the author --Miskwito (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 PASSOP. m.o.p 05:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braam Hanekom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly meets WP:ANYBIO. Created by User:Refugeeadvocacy, very likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO only comes into play if the subject doesn't pass WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Could the nominator please explain how the sources in the article and found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination fail to demonstrate a pass of those criteria? I must also point out that, per WP:AGF, we shouldn't be guessing about an author's motives for creating an article, and, even if there was a conflict of interest, that wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PASSOP. The vast majority of sources in this article are either broken links, unreliable sources, or don't even mention Hanekom once. Don't think he passes the notability bar. —SW— ^gossip 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that he is well known, please look at talk comments over thirty thousand google results and several news results. Unfounded nomination for deletion.

He is found everywhere on the web can someone explain why there is a problem with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links working now? So whats wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he is extensively quoted and has received many awards, should remain on wikipedia.41.133.113.22 (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.113.22 (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. No sources have been provided so the argument that this is unsourced has not been refuted. Can be restored once sources appear Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Shantipur Temple in Czarnów

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Gaura79 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.

• Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Could somebody also nominate it for AfD at pl Wikipedia? It's at pl:WP:SDU. It would be helpful to see what Polish Wikipedians will have to say on that (pl:Świątynia Nowe Śantipur w Czarnowie). Ping me in a day or so if nobody has done it yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources become available. —SW— ^converse 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Seems like some inline refs have been added. Bare, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article cites two Hare Krishna websites and one Hare Krishna publication. I couldn't find any coverage of this temple in independent, reliable sources in English or Polish language.Gaura79 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Hindu religious community in Poland. The Polish sources establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The way the article is written you would have thought there would be coverage somewhere, but I, too, can find absolutely nothing. Black Kite (t) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Houts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disabled musician is only referenced by his Myspace page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage. Z-E-R-O. EEng (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add some relevant information to article. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Enough Internet evidence for subject and unprompted artist. (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Information has been added, but no sources. At this point the only source is a Myspace page. EEng (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Thong Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally non-notable organization with flash-in-the-pan notoriety in the popular press as filler several years ago. Toddst1 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There needs to be more proof of notability. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No proof of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 already redirected. Out-of-process redirections really should be undone to let AfDs play out, but since redirect was the likely end point here anyway... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus Higher Primary School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable primary school. Primary schools Are not considered inherently notable pet OUTCOMES. It has received passing mention in relationship to one event, but that isn't even at the level suggested in ONEVENT. I asked twice of the article's creator if he could explain the reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia as it wasn't obvious to me but he declined comment. ^Bongo_matic 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) ^Bongo_matic 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mangalore or an article about Catholic education in the area, is such an article exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close of AFD per WP:OUTCOMES. The stub article was redirected after being nominated, and so there is no longer anything to discuss. Editors may certainly look HERE to see what was first nominated, but as the topic no longer exists as a separate article, this AFD has been rendered moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK. ^Bongo_matic 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I am sure that the diocese operates far more schools than just this one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy-deleted as CSD G3 by SchuminWeb. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Bike) Racking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP thing that was allegedly created last week →Σ τ c. 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously vandalism or hoax, not worth an AFD. Tagged. Secret ^account 01:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stylianos Vlasopoulos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not ~~mean~~ meet the criteria of WP:BIO. No Google hits, no reliable sources. The author is related to the subject of this article and also featured himself in the other Vlassopoulos article [please note: Link not working due to deletion of linked article], therefore has a WP:COI. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak deleteThis is a horrible Google automatic translation from the Greek Wikipedia article, but editing would fix the howlers and odd phrasing generated by the computer translation. The nominator's objection to the article is invalid if the statements in the article can be verified, since a person who did what he is said to have done might ~~would generally~~ be accepted as satisfying WP:BIO. The article says he was "judge of the Supreme Court." In some locations (New York State), that is the lowest trial level, in which criminal cases are initially heard, and being such a judge would not establish notability. If it were the highest appeal court of a nation, it would be a reasonable basis for notability. It is not proved by any reference other than a link to other Wikipedias, and in the original Greek Wiki, there are just several refs listed at the end with no inline cites to make verification feasible. It says he was a "delegate of the Ionian Academy during the French occupation." If that were a government position comparable to a US state legislature or higher, then he would be presumed notable. Ionian Academy is about an academic institution, and says it was only established in 1824, two years after Vlasopoulos is said to have died. A claim that he was on the governing council of a university would not in any automatic way show notability, even if the dates meshed. I agree with comments (Google translated ) in Greek on the discussion page of the article in the Greek 'pedia: "The sources must be more specific. Files and personal files are not acceptable as sources, unless they are widely published, so we have the source to report the post and not only the. - Miria 14:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)." Google books has no results under the name as transliterated here, nor in the Greek spelling from that Wikpedia, "Στυλιανός Βλασόπουλος." That raises a major red flag. Edison (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Edison but you don't have to tell me The nominator's objection to the article is invalid if the statements in the article can be verified. Everyone on Wikipedia knows that. Isn't this what it is all about? WP:RS and WP:V are the policies that make this place reliable and respectable. I or you can make any statement we want about grandpa or anyone else for that matter. But if we don't have any WP:RS there is no WP:V and no notability. In short, Wikipedia trades in high level info using high-standard sources. Don't tell me we are anything close to these standards in this bio. Have you also seen the other article about the family? It is covered by genealogical trees without anything resembling a reliable source. It is also at AfD and not by me. I also don't understand your weak delete in the absence of any reliable, verifiable source to verify these assertions. Except if you are still hoping they will or can be found. But I do agree with you on the big red flag of Google getting no hits for the article. To be more succinct: Everyone likes to tell stories of grandeur about their family. That doesn't mean that they can have an article in Wikipedia. If these tales cannot be verified they only belong in the family album, not in Wikipedia. So no "weak delete"s here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make a drive-by nomination and then attack anyone who does not fully agree with you. Your nomination was vague, cryptic and misspelled or garbled. Your nomination did not indicate how it failed with respect to WP:BIO: if it was lacking a claim of notability, or if it was lacking verification of a suitable claim. You did not indicate that being "a justice on the supreme court" would have satisfied you if it were verified. You had no comment about the notability of other claims. If no RS are presented, I expect the nominator to search for them before nominating, and to indicate where he searched unsuccessfully for RS. Did you? If you can read Greek, you are far better set up to check for sources than I am. If he had been verifiably a noted author, academic, and/or justice on a nation's highest court, it would have a 'keep. So I felt, and feel, that only a weak delete is suitable. Edison (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah the misspelling. Sorry about that. I will fix it. I created three new articles last week and I was busy fixing them, at the same time as I was fighting vandalism. So being busy dropped the quality of my nom rationale, let alone the spelling. Granted. On the other hand, like I told you, I did Google the name and nothing came up, as you also mentioned. I should have mentioned that, but anyone can press the Google sources buttons on this nom in the "Find sources" line, and find out what I already knew. This is why I became complacent regarding Google. Because the buttons are here for everyone to verify. If the Google buttons worked for this person someone would have said so. Finally your question about being a Supreme Court judge, if that would be satisfactory. I didn't think about that, because the complete lack of sources told me that this claim would not be verifiable anyway. Therefore I will not deal in hypotheticals. If I don't see any sources or Google can't find them for me, that's too bad. Case closed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify where I attacked you? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I take exception to you calling my nom drive-by. I thought you being an experienced editor and admin would show more respect to another experienced editor and show more good faith. Maybe I was a bit careless, I don't do this stuff often, but it was done in good faith and based on solid principles. If the presentation was flawed so be it. But this negativity is completely uncalled for. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally by saying "no weak keep"s here, I spoke for myself. I would not presume to speak for you or anyone else. I respect your opinion and I know that you reached it after due deliberation. If you thought that I was criticising your !vote by making this comment, I can assure you that definitely I was not and I am sorry if you took it otherwise. In fact I think that your !vote was completely consistent with your criteria and I respect both your criteria and your conclusion. My criteria are different and I reached a different conclusion from yours. That's all. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is a prime example of why Google Translate should not be used to create articles. For one thing, while the name as stated gives no Google hits, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL all do - not many, not ideal (and in the last case, one has to search through a number of clearly irrelevant hits), but enough to verify a couple of small points (I've added relevant citations to the article). Given the number of languages relevant reliable sources are likely to be in (Greek, Italian, French and English, at least) and the likely age of many of them, this is going to be difficult to source properly but, given time and work, it should certainly be possible. PWilkinson (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Biagio Colonna" is not necessarily Vlassopoulos. The Italian book states Vlassopoulos as the publisher and Colonna as the writer. La Difesa della chiesa greca ultimamente assalita da Comenido Reaixtei, scritta da Biaggio Colonna... (Publicata da Stelio Vlassopulo.). Scritta da Biaggio Colonna in Italian means "written by Biaggio Colonna" Publicata da Stelio Vlassopulo means "Published by Stelio Vlassopulo" Yet you wrote in the article that Stelio Vlassopulo wrote under the pseudonym of "Biaggio Colonna". This is analysing a primary source, the book, and reaching your own conclusions. I don't have to explain hopefully that this is original research. Actually this is worse than that. It is analysing a primary source and reaching a different conclusion from that which the primary source clearly states. The source calls Colonna the writer and you refer to him as a pseudonym of Vlassopoulos. Is this how we write articles in this place? By sheer imagination? Your citations are also primary sources and assert no notability of the works cited. In fact only the titles exist and nothing else. You cannot base notability on these citations. I hope that we won't have to resort to original research, imagination, and synthesis of scant primary sources to save the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dr. K. It is inappropriate synthesis and original research to conflate an author and a publisher. But the 1993 book which shows in book search by Stamatopolous calls him a "scholar and historian," which is some indication of notability. Edison (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I said as asserting that I had established notability, my apologies - I certainly did not intend to, as I clearly had not. The points verified by the sources I added certainly do not establish notability by themselves (and wouldn't even if the sources weren't primary) - though I think that they do make it far more likely that other sources, on the Google lists and elsewhere, will do so, if and when found. The pseudonymity claim was my carelessness, and was not intended to be backed by any of the sources I added. I had started by looking for and testing the search terms I have given above, then after finding the Index entry, went as I thought to tidy up the mention of Biagio Colonna (and in particular get the name correct) and quite likely badly misinterpreted it. I found and added the link to the Google books entry for La difesa della chiesa greca just before I posted the article - it was late at night, my time, but I should have realised that it at least apparently contradicted the claim and rewritten that bit again. In excuse, my interpretation had been influenced by a couple of the sources on the lists (this, which I certainly realise is not unambiguous enough given the bibliographic information, and at least one other) - when I get the time (which won't be in the next 24 hours but should be well before this discussion closes), I will recheck these and amend the article. PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is no longer a automatic translation (I agree to delete these on sight). The individual was a Senator, and as such meets WP:POLITICIAN. Perhaps another spelling for the name should be found, but I am not sure which one. Vlassopoulos? Vlassopulos? Vlassopulo? Place Clichy (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And where exactly is the reliable citation that he was a senator? Or a Governor of Lefkada? Or anything else? Are we now going to go by uncited, unverifiable claims? In this case we might as well delete our deletion policy. Anyone with any unverifiable claim can now be supported, according to your logic, to have an article on the English Wikipedia. In fact precisely because the author of this article seems to have a COI as regards the article of his apparent great-great...-grandfather, as you also know, we must have heavy-duty citations for such extraordinary claims per WP:REDFLAG. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have found no evidence either way on his being a senator (a pity, as this would certainly fulfil WP:POLITICIAN#1), though as this collection of constitutional documents shows, he was a signatory of the 1803 constitution of the Septinsular Republic. On the connection with Lefkada, this book by Pappas (which certainly looks to me like a reliable source) refers to "the Septinsular civil authority of Lefkas, prytanis (rector) Stylianos Vlassopoulos". Judging by the 1803 constitution (particularly clause 126), the "prytanis" would effectively have been the central government's main representative on Lefkada - so "governor" is a possible translation, though quite likely not the best one. Unfortunately, I'm only in a position to see snippets - could someone with access to a good library please check and amend the article appropriately? This is a particular problem as, while the book looks as if it probably contains more information on Stylianos Vlassopoulos than I have been able to see, it may actually very well disconfirm most of the paragraph on Lefkada - it looks highly likely that the article creator has confused Stylianos Vlassopoulos with Joannes (or Giovanni or Ivan) Vlassopoulos, the Russian consul at Preveza at the time. It would also be good to find out one way or another whether this is the translation of Vlassopoulos's Saggio de statistica dell' Isola di Corfu mentioned here by Stamatopoulos - it seems to be cited quite frequently. (And Stamatopoulos's book is again one I have frustratingly only been able to see in Google snippets). PWilkinson (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article may not meet notability guidelines, but its lead sentence connects to an article which is up for aFd. Tinton5 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And now gone, as is my link showing the edit by the apparent COI editor to the now deleted article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit to some uncertainty about the governance of Greece/Italy during that time period. However, from what I can tell, the offices he held were equivalent to being a legislator or judge at the sub-national level (though which nation it was "sub-" to seems to have changed from Venice to France to Ottoman & Russia to France (again) to Britain during his lifetime - I'm not sure which one(s) would apply) and thereby passes WP:POLITICIAN. Clarity about when he held office and a link to the articles for the actual governments he held office under (Corfu Province, Septinsular Republic, United States of the Ionian Islands, etc.) would help immensely. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Actually, better sourcing would be great. I guess there's no way to know if he's notable if we can't even tell what he did, can we? I'd like to know where the original author got the information to start with, at least. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not temporary, if the person was notable at the time of living, then still notable for wikipedia. From what I can read this individual was definately notable at the time. Unless there would be any hoax claims, article should not be deleted. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are still trying to find out the notability of this individual and so far we have scant evidence by a few primary sources that he may have written a book and in another that his signature appears on the constitution of the Septinsular republic and that he is referred to as rector. These primary sources are interpreted by us to be important, which is original research, yet there is no secondary or tertiary source attesting to any significance of the scant evidence which exists. Every other claim made in the article about Ali Pasa and saving the Greeks of Kefalonia etc. is sompletely unverified. How are we going to write an article on the person then? Are we going to say that "his signature appeared on the constitution of the Septinsular republic" without an independent scholar having said that? And "He is referred to as rector in some book"? Are we going to be based on personal evidence to interpret literally one-word primary document evidence to write an article? Is this our function on Wikipedia? To read one-word entries in some old list attached to some name, (not even supported by a complete sentence), and then write articles about the name appearing on the list? This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And even if we do this SYNTH what then? Everything else mentioned in the article will have to go. What we are going to end up with is just a few WP:OR/WP:SYNTH supported sentences and a one-sentence stub of an article. Not a pretty sight. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was not transcluded in the daily logs. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed for 2 weeks, and then someone botched the relisting process on Oct 17. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. m.o.p 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mawarid Bank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously-deleted article makes no claim of notability. Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable sources (book sources are directory information only, news sources don't seem to provide any coverage of the institution). ^Bongo_matic 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. The current text is useless as unambiguous advertising, and I didn't see anything that looked like significant coverage in the first few pages of Google results: Al-Mawarid Bank is growing towards banking excellence through improving its wide range of services, and introducing innovative products.... Al-Mawarid Bank’s range of Credit & Debit Cards, Loans, Accounts and Personalized Services, is designed around its customers, since their customer’s satisfaction comes first. I think I threw up in my mouth a little. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The text at the time of nomination read like an advertisement because the material had been copied from bank's web site. At the time the article was created, the text was neutral in tone, and was referenced. I have restored that material. The article should be reviewed again and judged on the basis of notability,a nd not the advertising tone. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bank is mentioned here and there but I cannnot find significant coverage about the bank. This source calls the bank relatively minor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The non-copyvio version is reasonable enough, and the bank seems like it should be notable. Are there any Wikipedians from the area who might be able to find more? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"seems like it should be notable" doesn't appear to be a valid consideration for the discussion. The fact that it doesn't fall under {{db-copyvio}} isn't either. ^Bongo_matic 02:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This discussion was listed properly for 2 weeks, then on Oct 17 it was removed from the log to relist a 2nd time, but never properly relisted. I have now added it to the current day's deletion log. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No find significant coverage. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the article topic is not on its own a meaningful subject, as LGBT rights in Commonwealth countries are country-specific, it being an affiliated group of nations rather than a geographical or administrative grouping. It's consigned to be an original synthesis at worst or a list of information covered in the individual nations' articles at best; in neither case is there likely to be RS specifically for the article topic itself. In short, I'm AfDing this because it can only be a non-notable and synthesis-prone regrouping of notable information. Tristessa (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristessa - the reason I started this article was to reflect the current emerging debate within the UK about how far to engage across the Commonwealth on LGBT rights. There have been several news articles examining this. I accept that the article needs more work to set out a narrative around the development of anti-sodomy laws and British influence through colonialism, and I will work on this - but nevertheless I feel it is a useful grouping as history and issues across Commonwealth states are actually quite closely aligned; and it's not simply a case of bagging together a group of unrelated states. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick look round for sources finds that there is material discussing the spectrum of LGBT rights in the Commonwealth, or more specifically about the lack of rights for LGBTs in some parts of the Commonwealth and the reaction of those in other parts. It ought to be prose, however - the list should be a minor part of it (and also be linked properly to the "LGBT rights in..." articles). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the level of LGBT rights (or rather lack thereof) of those individual countries is a matter entirely separate to the Commonwealth itself; there may well be a spectrum of rights, but that's because the issue is not part of Commonwealth political business at all. We wouldn't have an article on "LGBT rights in Stockholm Convention member states", because the countries' LGBT rights have nothing to do with the alliance about persistent organic pollutants; the two are a non-sequitur. --Tristessa (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our business to decide that people in, say, the UK and Australia shouldn't care about LGBT rights in other Commonwealth countries because LGBT rights and the fact of being in the Commonwealth are unrelated. They do, and they've received reliable coverage for it. Is the same true of Stockholm Convention states? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Roscelese. In which case this reliable coverage, as well as some narrative to state its notability, ought to be included in the article. --Tristessa (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled - is this intended to be a withdrawal of the deletion nomination? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant I agree with your line of reasoning, and that the sources should be added to the article if they exist -- it's impossible to guess at the quality of (future) sources not added to the article, if you see what I mean. (But I see you've listed some below, which seem to be newspaper/magazine references; I haven't looked at them yet). --Tristessa (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand what you mean - of course the sources would have to be added, and some prose written. It's just that surmountable problems - like absence of sources from an article when the topic is shown to be notable and the sources exist - aren't a reason for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I'm not convinced by the sources below that it is surmountable, to be honest; it still does strike me as a shade tenuous. --Tristessa (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. When I was looking for sources, I was initially thinking of recommending that we delete this article and use the sources to expand The Kaleidoscope Trust, but really the sources are about rights in the Commonwealth, not about the organization, though it comes up sometimes in these pieces. Some of these developments seem to be recent, as well, so we may see more pop up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few sources Activists Fight Homophobia in Britannia's Old Empire Elizabeth the only queen allowed in many Commonwealth nations Commonwealth chief against homophobia CHOGM push for LGBT rights –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Roscelese; Looks like this exact topic has been covered in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify and start over Needs a complete rewrite. I suggest a table, which lists (for each country) which acts are and are not legal and the year in which the status changed. With a reference for each. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have articles covering this. It is redundant. Already covered by articles like: LGBT rights by country or territory --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT rights by country or territory. Some useful and neutral information that could add content and context to that article. Dzlife (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - already covered elsewhere. --John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no article dedicated to LGBT issues across the British Commonwealth. There are important synergies between these nations and there is growing action (covered by the media) about addressing LGBT rights at the Commonwealth Heads of State grouping. The article creates transparency which would not be had by splitting this information aross existing articles. You would have to know which states in africa, asia etc were Commonwealth members before you could begin any comparison. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article title is misleading. "LGBT rights" does not stop at whether homosexuality itself is illegal. (see: marriage, legal gender-status of transgendered individuals, adoption rights, etc. etc. etc. etc.) Properly, this should be titled List of Commonwealth countries in which homosexuality is illegal (a trivial intersection, IMHO).
Article contains two lists - legal and illegal (superfluous, no?)
This article is unnecessary considering List of LGBT rights articles by region provides links to far more in-depth articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the point is it's not a list. I agree it would be rather pointless if it was just a list. It's intended to be an article setting out issues in common across the commonwealth and to capture any discussion at the commonwealth level. But I don't see the point of me working to improve the article to reflect this if everyone is going to simply vote to delete it; so I might as well not bother for the timebeing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could request the article be userfied for you and continue to shape it outside of mainspace. But in any case, I'm not judging the article by what it could possibly be if somebody rewrote it entirely. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful advice - I shall consider that. But aren't we discussing here the validity of whether there should actually be an article called "LGBT rights in the Commonwealth" (and the value of that) rather than judging whether that article should exist by nature of how it is currently writen? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial recent improvements to the article. I would urge everyone to take another look and see if the current version meets general concerns. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and politically relevant given current events. Ross Fraser (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this news article help with the decision on whether we keep the article? http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/10/19/australian-foreign-minister-to-call-on-commonwealth-to-repeal-anti-gay-laws/

Now that the Commonwealth Secretary General made a historic inclusion on LGBT rights in his speech yesterday can we agree that this article should no longer b reviewed as an article for deletion? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this now? I would have hoped that the person that raised concerns in the first place, would have maintained an interest throughout. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15488237 Contaldo80 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - LGBT rights have dominated many proceedings at CHOGMs, and there's significant media coverage of the Commonwealth's efforts to legalise homosexuality and reduce homophobia in the Commonwealth's African and Caribbean members. And, yes, because the coverage of the topic in reliable sources is dominated by legalising homosexuality itself, the focus of the article should be on that. Bastin 11:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I found this article because I was specifically interested in the legal situation within the Commonwealth of Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandect (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This was listed properly for 2 weeks, then on Oct 17 it was removed from the log to relist a 2nd time, but never properly relisted. I have now added it to the current day's deletion log. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea what the article used to look like, and I agree that maybe the lists should just go completely because they're not very helpful or unique in any way, but I think that currently the article at least demonstrates that (1) its topic is not a trivial intersection, as there is political interest in the issue of gay rights in the Commonwealth and Commonwealth countries do contain important links, both historically and to the present day; and (2) it's capable of being expanded to include more reliable sources in the future. Plus, I personally think that it's interesting and WP could use more articles about LGBT subjects. AgnosticAphid talk 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good coverage from reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat feminism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This aticle has been in an unsourced state, containing original research for years. The subject is not to be found in any search of scholarly material.
Most of the sources listed within the article are synthesized and the 2 that purported to be about the topic directly are nolonger available[92][93].
Page should be deleted as original research by synthesis, and becuase the topic itself seems to fail the basic requirements of both WP:GNG (from the point of view of not having significant coverage directly about it) and WP:NRVE--Cailil ^talk 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—could you be more specific about what you think is original research in there? i don't see anything that rings an OR bell with me. in fact, it looks to me like the books in the bibliography would just about cover everything in the article, although i haven't had time to check yet. my initial instinct is that this article needs nothing more than an inline template and some more work than just checking websites to see that the topic is fundamentally notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the majority of the page, which contends that there is a branch of feminism that "promote[s] acceptance for women of all sizes and oppose[s] any form of size discrimination [and that] has not met mainstream acceptance" is unsourced. Secondly the cited portions of text, that are being used to advance this idea within the article, are in fact not about a fat-postive feminist movement but rather, about body image and weight issues. Some of these sources might be useful in the Fat acceptance movement or Body image articles, but they do not demonstarte, define, mention, or explain any fat feminist movement. Using these to do so is a novel interpretation, and using them to advance the points made in the unsourced text is pure OR.
The significant books, most of which are reliable sources, that are listed (but not cited) in the bibliography/further reading section are in the main actually about eating disorders (Bordo, Orbach, Malson, Fallon, Hirschmann, Manton, MacSween and Braziel's books all deal with feminist appraoches to anorexia and what they argue are the socially constructed aspects of gender identity and stereotypes that relate to it - none of them outline a fat feminism; Parker's book is about representations of "Fat Ladies" in literature; so that leaves the edited collections Fat: A Fate Worse Than Death? & Fat Oppression and Psychotherapy - neither of which I've read but on a google books search the former doesn't contain the phrase 'fat feminism' at all[94]).
And again the only material that purported to be directly about the subject is now unavailable--Cailil ^talk 02:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your detailed response; very helpful.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Susan Orbach didn't call her book, Thin is a feminist issue. There is certainly a feminist perspective to fat acceptance and you can read about it in Women and Obesity, for example. Whatever needs doing here shouldn't require deletion as this would be contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing my point Colonel Warden. Yes multiple feminists have dealt with issues around anorexia and obesity (nobody is denying this). However this article argues that there is a movement/ideology called fat-positive feminism. (Which BTW is neither defined nor described in either Orbach's book or the one you link to).
These sources would be okay for an article about feminism and anorexia or feminism and obesity but that is not what this one is about. There is a huge gulf between recording that feminists say "X" about obesity and/or eating disorders (which is verifiable), and then using that 'x statement' to argue that there is a feminist movement/ideology about weight issues (which is unverified).
However, I'd be happy to change my mind *if* sources on this movement, as a movement/ideology, could be found--Cailil ^talk 14:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not going look yourself, right?

Julie Willett (2010), The American Beauty Industry Encyclopedia, p. 114, Another growing field of feminism in the 21st century is fat-positive feminism.
Leslie Heywood (2006), The women's movement today: an encyclopedia of third-wave feminism, vol. 1, A New Fat-Positive Feminism
Sander L. Gilman (2008), Diets and dieting: a cultural encyclopedia, p. 97, There is an ever-growing movement variously referred to as "size acceptance," "fat acceptance," "fat positive," ... While both women and men are involved, many organizations have a decidedly feminist take ...
George Haggerty, Bonnie Zimmerman (2000), Encyclopedia of lesbian and gay histories and cultures, vol. 1, p. 291, NAAFA has had a feminist caucus since 1983; a lesbian group, since 1990. Fat-positive sexuality has always been part of fat lesbians' agenda.

Notice how all these works describe themselves as encyclopedias. There's plenty more works of a more general sort. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second Colonel warden there is no need for ad hominem remarks ("But you're not going look yourself, right?"), contrary to your accusation I went through the whole bibliography listed on the page to check for an actual definition of the topic.
If you can source this and write it appropriately please by all means go ahead. But I'm araid mentions of a movement (that may already be covered by the article Fat acceptance movement) don't convince me that this topic meets WP:NRVE and GNG (ie significant coverage) but then that's my 2c, and if this AFD results in a keep and those who have access to the books are spurred on to rewrite the current page into a proper article then that's great--Cailil ^talk 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—in addition to Warden's sources, i find this on jstor
- Josée Johnston; Judith Taylor (Summer 2008). "Feminist Consumerism and Fat Activists: A Comparative Study of Grassroots Activism and the Dove Real Beauty Campaign". Signs. 33 (4): 941–966. JSTOR 10.1086/528849.

which tells us, among other things, of a group called "Pretty, Porky, and Pissed Off," which tells us, after a long list of actions taken by the group, that "Thus, PPPO brought a complex feminist analysis into a queer arts space in which neither hegemonic beauty standards nor corporate capitalism were previously much critiqued." also, this article tells us that "PPPO employed what it conceived of as a third-wave feminist approach to fat activism and community building that explicitly recognized multiple axes of inequality." In regard to the statement mentioned by Cailil about putative fat feminism not having "met mainstream acceptance" these authors state "Feminist counterhegemonic activism is marginalized on multiple fronts: as the media hails the death of feminism, scholarly investigations of social movements omit multiple and varied feminist actions on the basis that only actions targeting the state count as contentious" and then go on to use PPPO as an example of a feminist group marginalized in exactly this way due to their focus on body image rather than political rights. finally, i would like to suggest a move, should the article survive the afd, to "Fat Positive Feminism," since that seems a more likely search term.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just by means of clarification - the quotation about not being mainstream is not my statement it's a quote from the article.--Cailil ^talk 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i saw that; i meant that as a suggestion that this bit from the source could conceivably be used as a source for that statement from the article, because i think that you're absolutely right that that statement from the article sounds synthy. i should have made it more clear.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob;em ALWL - it seems to me if this page is kept at least we've generated a critical mass for people to rebuild & rewrite the article--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be adequate coverage in WP:RS secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 List of General Hospital characters. Since there are no comments suggesting this couple is notable, I have merely redirected, since most of the information is already in the target article. Black Kite (t) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Spinelli and Maxie Jones

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a cut and paste from: http://soapcentral.com/gh/whoswho/damian.php?&printonly=yes Wlmg (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending. Copyrighted cut and paste material supposedly removed.--Wlmg (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copyright violations should be speedily deleted WP:CSD#G12, not brought to AfD. In any case, soap opera couples are not notable enough for their own article. Any useful information from this article should be merged back to List of General Hospital characters, with no redirect left behind. —SW— ^gossip 16:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The copyrighted material has been removed from the article. WP:CSD#G12 is no longer applicable. Wlmg (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: As the issues of copyvios have been addressed, however there has been insufficient discussion notability which has also been mentioned. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Speedy keep. If this nomination was meant as a serious challenge to the subject's notability and/or to the notability standard at WP:POLITICIAN, the nominator is free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review and provide further explanation there. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Thornburgh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively obscure and unknown public figure from the 70s and 80s. Does not meet notability guidelines. Hhhter (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep—clearly disruptive nomination. a spa is trying to make some kind of point here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Can we get a rush on closing this one please? All US AG's and governors of Pennsylvania are obviously notable. Disruptive nom. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, [[95]] reported at WP:ANI. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.