Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 11
11 July 2014[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Cold Fusion should be the parent item of the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Roughly 70% of the Cold Fusion article is about Pons and Fleischmann. There are many other research efforts worthy of description but the article is to big to describe them. This is why I proposed a split in march 2013. -- Newslibrary lists 1400+ US news articles about Pons and Fleischmann and google books lists 11000+ books. Newslibrary lists 39000+ US articles about Cold fusion and google books lists 120000 books, (these results include results for the "Cold Fusion programming language") The motivations for deleting the article are not valid excuses to refuse an article split. Editors pretend not to be aware of the split. -- I've talked with the closing admin on irc, he was to busy with the backlog to address the issue and pointed me here. The users protest against the split on the ground that a spin out would be a pov fork intend to white wash the topic. I ignored these arguments because they address neither split criteria nor notability policy while accusing me of something I will do in the future.[1](long before the split existed) Involved editors believe in deleting articles for being fringe.[2][3](this was my list in a another users user space because ip editors only have the sand box, the arguments are down right hostile and no civil debate preceded the deletion request) In my humble opinion, notability of both Cold Fusion and the Fleischmann-Pons experiment is easily established and you can easily see which one is the parent item. It is less obvious that the Subsequent research section can be expanded into a whole article but this is mainly because of the same editors previous deletions[4] I know it is not unusual to merge closely related articles (i.e. Cold Fusion with Fleischmann-Pons experiment) but in this case the disproportionate coverage is quite elaborate.[5] The response again fails to address split criteria or those for notability. I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip. It's wonderful. There are 100 000 usable sources, but with the exception of a nobel laureate, not one constructive editor survived the cold fusion article, they all got exterminated. 1000 admins looked at this, not one dared to ban any of these foul mouthed wiki stalkers. This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. I'm almighty curious if you have what it takes to implement that, I confess to have extremely little faith in the admin lottery. The last one I ran into violated 5 out of 5:[6] of the applicable guidelines:[7] A most impressive score. Maybe I will get lucky with you. hehehe. Either way, good luck and have a nice day. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |