Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia

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 lot of the arguments given in this discussion are not valid arguments for deletion, and participants who have not yet done so would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. After excluding these arguments, there is consensus that the coverage in independent reliable sources is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline (even if we do not count nyteknik.se). There doesn't seem to be much support for a merge, and a few of the merge arguments were based on E-Cat's fringe status, which in itself is not a valid argument for merging or for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Delete this article because it represents just undue weight to a device impossible even only to define with independent sources (the definition that is actually written in the page is wrong and unsupported, more details can be found here). TheNextFuture (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— TheNextFuture (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep/merge I think the significant coverage in the article is pretty conclusive that it satisfies all relevant inclusion policies. There is also ample and adequate sourcing to meet WP:FRINGE requirements as well. Impossibility of the device isn't a grounds for removing it from wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk)

It doesn't matter if it works or not. The article is about E-Cat, so can you define it possibly with independent sources? If you cannot, you can try also with the declarations of Rossi (even if independent source are strictly required by wikipedia). Good Luck! --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of primary sources in the article, principally ny teknik, but there are some independent sources too like forbes, focus and Wired. I wouldn't mind trimming the fat that is solely based on involved non-independent sources; and a merge is always possible. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is Forbes who says that about the E-Cat "there's no real news". So this case is really simple, we have even sources that state that we are keeping a separated article about no real news. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge works for me too. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's WP:SNOWing keeps Lots and lots of us think this thing is a scam, and judging from the way the article is not being updated (New Energy Times seemingly providing the only ongoing coverage, and we've decided that it isn't reliable for our purposes) it looks as though this is going to be one of those things that just fades away. That said, the consensus the last time was overwhelming, and judging from the nominator's attempts to feel things out on the article talk page, consensus is not going to change. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While I oppose outright deletion, I am amenable to a merge to Rossi's article, if that's the way others would prefer to take it. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with the various ongoing media coverage it has received. The article manages to be WP:NPOV and I don't see any policy-based reason to delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar machines, like those of Arata, are reasonably not present in wikipedia. At the moment, this device has nothing to do with LERN which can be supported with independent sources (in contrast to what is written actually in the article). So it is an undue weight to a claim of only one person. --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arata machine got almost ZERO coverage from media compared with the coverage deserved by the media towards the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, at least from the scientific point of view. Consider also that the same discussion is valid for the machine of Fleischmann–Pons, which had definitely higher media coverage compared to E-Cat. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One commentator in the last debate called this a "noteworthy scam" and that's probably a useful way to think of things if you happen to be convinced of the crackpot nature of the "cold fusion industry." There is still POV lurking in this piece that needs to be weeded out, but that's an editing matter. Passes GNG, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've changed my mind on it being a "noteworthy scam". If you look at mainstream coverage, it has had very little. There are endless blogs of course. Even the Forbes quotes are from the Forbes blog. The e-cat deserves 1 paragraph in the Rossi page so it can be with his other scams Bhny (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No reason to delete. The nominator just doesn't like it. There's plenty of stuff been written about it - and when or if it turns about to be measurement error or scam, or when or if it turns out to be real, there will be plenty more. Tmccc (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— Tmccc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are wrong, I like a lot the E-Cat. But here we are discussing about the article and especially about the missing sources, not of what I like or not. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is well source and followed by the media (last article published today: [1]). The article is well balanced, well referenced, well written.
  Be the issue less polarising, nobody would even remotely think to start an AfD.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nyteknik is a primary source since they are closely involved with Rossi. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ny Teknik article is about Rossi's latest device, not the E-Cat as described by our article - there are no reliable sources on the new device. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ny Teknik article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). Not much of a mention, and anyway, it has already been made clear on several occasions that over-reliance on Ny Teknic as a source is highly problematic. And don't you think that it might be better to describe Holm as the source does, "CEO of Hydro Fusion", rather than as "physicist" - I'd think that 'CEO' might imply 'COI' here.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right AndyTheGrump: physicist Magnus Holm is the "CEO of Hydro Fusion".--Insilvis (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Andrea Rossi. At this point, Rossi seems (judging by the only sources we have - unreliable ones) to have abandoned his original, 'patented' and 'demonstrated' E-Cat, and is now promoting another 'high temperature' device about which there are no meaningful reliable sources whatsoever, apart from a recent report in Ny Teknik (itself a questionable source, as discussed previously, due to it's lack of expertise and close involvement with Rossi), which doesn't describe the device, states (from what Google translate makes of it) that the 'high temperature device has failed tests required by potential Swedish investors. [2] What is and what isn't an E-Cat has become less clear by the day, almost every prior claim by Rossi has subsequently been retracted, or swept under the carpet, and all the predictions about the device coming onto the market have been proven false. Quite simply, there is no E-Cat except in as much as Rossi claims that such a device exists - and a device for which there is no meaningful verifiable evidence doesn't merit its own article. If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims, almost all subsequently proven to be without merit, to have invented a something-or-other that somehow-or-other produces excess heat. Rossi's unverified claims belong solely in an article about him. To have an article on an apparently miraculous device that exists solely in his imagination (as far as reliable sources can determine) is entirely undue. Sadly, the previous AfD failed to address this point properly, and instead got sidetracked into crystal-ball-gazing about what was 'going to happen soon which would make the topic notable'. Even the closing admin seems to have fallen into this trap: "a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell". Time has now told, and there is no longer any pretence at science, fringe or not, as far as Rossi's original device (the topic of the article) is concerned. If the device had any genuine long-term notability (as required under Wikipedia notability guidelines), there would be more material on it coming out. Instead, the few sources that took it at all seriously as anything other than unverifiable hype from Rossi have dropped the subject entirely. Rossi may be notable for the hype, but his magic teapot can have no notability beyond him, for the simple reason that there is no meaningful evidence that any such thing exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to the merge - issue already discussed two times in the past. My opposition to this merge stems from the simple fact, according to what it is reported, that the Energy Catalyzer is the result of a team work developed by inventor Andrea Rossi together with physicist Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there is no team work in the E-Cat development: "with the support from physicist Sergio Focardi". The source to this sentence is just the list of the professors of the Bologna university (the same as support that I have won the Nobel prize with the list of inmates of my apartment). The problem here is that Focardi doesn't know anything about the inside of the device, as he said clearly the last year. The Italian patent reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi", without any mention to Focardi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insilvis, Please do not !vote twice. And can you point to an independent reliable source that states that Focardi even knows what is inside the E-Cat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheNextFuture,

these are some of the initial references in the Energy Catalyzer page:

[3][4][5] where it is written that Andrea Rossi developed the Energy Catalyzer with Sergio Focardi.

AndyTheGrump,

what I know is what I can find here on Wikipedia, like this (English subtitles available) from TED Talk where Focardi illustrates his work with Rossi on the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't say that Focardi has developed the E-Cat together with Rossi. Focardi has done some works in the contest of nichel cold fusion and somehow Rossi said that he was inspired by them. Focardi says also that there were some meetings many years ago in which he explained to Rossi his previous devices and some of his ideas. He has also participated to some demonstrations until the beginning of the last year, but then he quite disappears. Also the patent (written by Rossi) reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi" without any mention to Focardi. In one of the article of our notes instead it is written: "Sergio Focardi [...] non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi", "As far as we know Sergio Focardi has not already had the possibility of studying the machine and, when we ask, he says to know as much as us". --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Focardi made no mention whatsoever of a presence of Rossi's supposed 'secret catalysts' in the E-Cat - which rather supports my suggestion that he doesn't know what is inside. Incidentally, Focardi's statements about Gamma radiation flatly contradict what Rossi told the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control. No surprises there: once again, the 'E-Cat' is whatever Rossi wishes to claim it to be, as circumstances require. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheNextFuture,

nice try. But you are 100% WRONG.

This is the complete paraghaph cited by you:

Sergio Focardi, 79 anni, "padre" delle reazioni nichel-idrogeno in Italia, è visibilmente affaticato e si tiene in disparte; Giuseppe Levi, fisico sperimentale, collega di Ferrari a Bologna, è inavvicinabile. Finché non decide di lanciarsi in un'accorata promozione dell'invenzione di Rossi: siamo sorpresi dalla ferma fiducia dello scienziato nell'E-Cat, in contrasto con la cautela di tanti altri ricercatori, perché non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi.

TRANSLATION:

Sergio Focardi, 79, the "father" of the [research about nuclear] reactions with nickel and hydrogen in Italy, is apparently fatigued and stand by; Giuseppe Levi, experimental physicist, colleague of [Loris] Ferrari at UNIBO [=Bologna], is unapproachable. Until he decides to start a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention: we are surprised by the firm trust shown by the scientist in the E-Cat, in contrast with the cautiousness of many other researchers, (NOTEbyInsilvis: Levi is a researcher at UNIBO) because we are not aware that he has indeed had the possibility to study the machine and him, inquired by us, affirm to know about it as much as us.

Therefore, it is clear that the text mentioned by you, TheNextFuture, refers to Giuseppe Levi and not to Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is clear that the meaning is the opposite, Levi is unapproachable and then Focardi starts a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention. In any case, the main sources are the patents (written directly by Rossi) in which the only inventor is "Andrea Rossi" (in fact he is the only one involved in the commercial management of the "E-Cat" and of its selling). The contribution of Focardi is completely neglected and it remains impossible to establish. Also in many of the websites that support explicitly the E-Cat, Focardi is an unspecified "scientific consultant" ("Andrea Rossi and his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" and "His research, aided by his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" just as example). --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot answer you because I am so angry for your behaviour that I would be immediately banned from Wikipedia should I express my view about your behaviour in this specific situation! Translating is something I hate, but I was force to do it because you decided to OMIT a crucial point in your quotation and so the sense of the paragraph was completely turned upside down by you. The discussion is closed for me, let the readers decide who is right and who is not.--Insilvis (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS

http://ecatreviews.com/ AND http://rossienergycatalyzers.com ???

Are these reliable sources according to you??? --Insilvis (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe in me and you don't like translations, you can look at the paper signed by Rossi and also Focardi, this is in English. Inside and in the abstract is linked directly the international patent application, where again Rossi is the only name written in the field "inventor". So also the same Focardi agrees that Rossi is the only inventor. For the rest, I can only say to you: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written in the same moment". Anyway, we have already explained our points of view, question closed. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) PS: Considering that now the unspecified support, and I repeat support ("with support from physicist Sergio Focardi"), of Focardi has as a source the list of the professors of Bologna, everything is better.[reply]

Merge works for me, it looks like the sources have died off now, and in the long run this will probably fade into the background; Rossi is what is truly notable. Much of the content in the Energy Catalyzer article is primary sourced and about random demonstrations at places, so the trim and merge would work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... Again? Keep as it's covered in several articles in reliable sources. The latest one published today. // Liftarn (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me just only one source about the E-Cat (and not of Rossi and his declarations)? --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like the one published today? --Insilvis (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is only an article about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself. The net is full of those articles, and up to now some supposed contracts signed by Rossi are at end failed. By coincidence, about the E-Cat it says only that there wasn't an energy gain in one of the demonstrations in Bologna in September, again the opposite of what is written by other sources (and by wikipedia article). Or is this again a misleading due the automatic translators of Swedish? --TheNextFuture (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). So the article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm, who is the CEO of Hydro Fusion, cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: for completeness, I include also the translation of the sentence "Vid investerarnas mätning den 6 september i Bologna kunde dock ingen värmeenergi konstateras utöver den inmatade elektriska effekten." given by the translator: "When investors measuring 6 September in Bologna, however, could no heat energy is found beyond the input electrical power." So, accordingly to this webpage it seems complete false that the E-Cat is an heat source, as written in the first line of the article ("The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a [...] heat source"). --TheNextFuture (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still misleading! This other sentence you are now referring to was the part of the article that is, according to your word, "about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself."--Insilvis (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I don't understand what do you mean. There are no reference in that sentence to the business, but to the heat measurements that were done ("no heat energy is found"). I don't know exactly to what machine is referred this sentence, but it doesn't matter. The point is not if the E-Cat works or not, but just only that about it you cannot write anything, even if you look only at the primary sources (and in principle you should have independent sources). --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is a video of Rossi talking about Focardi- "He does not know how the reactor is built" [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhny (talk • contribs)

Hehe, I can only smile and repeat again: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written (and now said) in the same moment". For this reason I support the merge of the essential news to the article of Rossi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still misleading information!

In the video posted just above, Rossi said that Focardi does not know how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are, but as you can see from the photos shown during the TED talk of Focardi (see here) there was no lead coverage at the beginning of the development. In other words, the lack of knowledge about how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are does not mean that Focardi did not participate in the development of the Energy Catalyzer since early stages.--Insilvis (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi does not know how thick the lead walls are because "He does not know how the reactor is built". How much clearer do you want it? Bhny (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focardi doesn't know what the e-cat catalyzer is. He says- "There is a compound that I do not know (nor want to know) that is meant to facilitate the reaction. " [[7]]

Apart from the fact that Wikipedia IS NOT a blog, and the sources you brought are simply UNUSABLE on Wikipedia, if you know Italian I suggest you to watch this video: Focardi says (as you reported) that there is indeed a catalyst and that he does not know its nature and he does not want to know its nature. However the journalist (who probably is a bit clever than others) asks Focardi if he has an idea about the nature of this catalyst. Focardi promptly responds: "yes, I have. However, because it is a secret I prefer not to tell you". So Focardi affirms that he does not know the nature of this catalyst, and he does not want to know it, and even if he has an idea of what the catalyst is he does not want to tell. Here I have to stop, but my personal opinion is that he knows everything. Otherwise he would not have any problem to answer the question posed by the journalist. About your other consideration: "He does not know how the reactor is built" is what Rossi says at THAT POINT of the video you point out, but if you watch the previous thirty seconds of that video it is clear that Rossi is talking about the lead walls surrounding the reactor. In other words, Rossi refers just to the nuclear envelope.--Insilvis (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am only trying to show you that it is obviously not teamwork by showing you Rossi and Focardi admitting as much. Somehow your personal opinion contradicts what they themselves say. Bhny (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in the video you brought to our attention Rossi and Focardi were interviewed together, cheek-to-cheek, just because it is not a team work between the two, right?--Insilvis (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is to ignore what they say and measure how close their cheeks are? Bhny (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason than to preserve the edit history so that when the truth is known, we can track the evolution of a controversial topic. Jim Bowery (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is merged, the edit history will be preserved, as is usual in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As already showed in the first deletion discussion, the topic is notable. TheNextFuture seems to be a very new contributor, and may not have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works; so, undue weight should not be a reason to delete an article, but, in a more constructive way, to write articles about equally or more notable topics which do not exist; the same way, badly written or POV articles should be improved and not deleted. As for merging to Andrea Rossi article, it does not seem a good idea to me, because Andrea Rossi is not notable per se, but just because of E-Cat notability (see creation dates in the histories). Croquant (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user of wikipedia, but I have been for a long time an ip contributor. A separate article for the E-Cat is an undue weight as itself, since for example there isn't (rightly) a separate article for the Fleischmann–Pons device, which had greater media coverage and scientific attention. Rossi is notable per se, because of his recent and previous controversial attempts in the energy world (i.e. also Petroldragon). Merging to the page of Rossi is the only solution, nothing of clear and with sources can be written in an article about the E-Cat (look above at the discussion about the role of Focardi if you want an example). Instead we have a lot of sources that describe the behavior and the declarations of Rossi, as the major (and I would say unique) contributor to the E-Cat affairs. It doesn't matter if the E-Cat works or not (we have an article about Telepathy), it doesn't matter also if it is a black box (Windows 7 is for some aspects a black box), but it is important that "If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims ..." as AndyTheGrump has written above. In any case, even if you keep it, the article definitively needs a lot of corrections. --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your answer, I persist in thinking you do not understand correctly Wikipedia principles. Croquant (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, I was thinking that writing unsupported facts without any sources is against the wikipedia principles. Clearly it is not so. We are unable to establish accordingly to the sources even who is the inventor of the supposed device (look above, and we didn't discuss about the supposed cold fusion, radiations, heat source, commercial plans, ecc), of what principles are we talking about? Nothing about the E-Cat can be written following the sources, is it possible in wikipedia to write completely unsupported articles? I don't want to change your opinion at all costs, but please think about this point. --TheNextFuture (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem that Andrea Rossi was not notable in many English sources until after the Energy Catalyzer - does this mean, if there is a merge, that the Andrea Rossi article ought to be merged into the Energy Catalyzer one? Tmccc (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable before the Energy Catalyzer because of Petrol Dragon etc. Italian sources contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am sorry but I don't see how this article is WP:UNDUE. The article seems to accruately report the current commentary pertaining to the E Cat story, and is backed up by sources. This is very much the essence of an acceptable Wikipeida article. If the internal components of the E Cat are unknown it is mostly because the promoters of this device pruposely give vague descriptions. Here is an interesting article about that in the Energy Bulletin and why it is doubtful this device actually works. Additionally this is the type of press that this subject is generating. Therefore this Wikipedia article is doing what it is supposed to do, and that is reflect or report on what the sources say. Also, I don't see any reason to merge because this seems to work very well as a stand alone article. It is possible that even more press will be generated depending on whether investors put money into it. ---- 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 September 2012‎

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Wikipedia article is one of the few remotely neutral sources of information on this subject. There's a few sycophantic blogs out there that have complete faith in Rossi, but the mainstream press won't touch it. --Captain Sumo (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Captain Sumo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep and not merge. First of all, the point of WP:UNDUE is about the article tone itself or over emphasizing some trivial little detail that is off topic. I don't even remotely see how calling an entire topic undue weight to Wikipedia and therefore justifies its deletion. This is a flat out inappropriate reason to justify deletion at all, other than to perhaps suggest the article itself needs to be nuked and rewritten based up on actual sources. That is sort of the point of an article talk page, of which this has been amply worked on. As for the merger request, I suggest that this topic has independent notability and does involve more than one person, even though Andrea Rossi is prominent in telling of this story. Otherwise, this AfD is a rehash of all of the arguments raise in the previous AfD where notability was clearly established.... IMHO the only real argument to even be worth discussing as grounds for deletion. Even the merger discussion was raised in the previous AfD and rejected. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media attention, there is sufficient Non-WP:RS evidence that things are happening behind the scenes (with a resolution on a relatively short timescale -- say 3-6 months) -- that we're still in a "wait and see" status. There is no particular reason to delete it now. Alanf777 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL - and note that "wait and see" arguments have frequently been made in the past. We've waited, and seen nothing but Rossi's usual hogwash. There is no reason whatsoever to assume this time will be any different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My apologies for my poor english. Keep it but rewrite it as one of the most famous scientific fake in the world. If you made the most uncredible discover of the century would'nt you be able to make it confirm by leading scientist? Where is the factory? 5th floor of a building in Miami? hum, hum... --Madelgarius (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (This is not "the most famous scientific fake in the world"...., see Category:Perpetual_motion for inventions that were much more famous. Steorn got world-wide coverage, Agha_Waqar's_water-fuelled_car has a lot more investigation from the local government, I have read about a very famous inventor who made a personal demo to the king of France but I can't find his article. History_of_perpetual_motion_machines has lots of inventors who made claims similar to Rossi's.). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Andrea Rossi. There is no evidence for ecat. There is no evidence that any other person than Rossi has shown ecat running continuously. There is no evidence than Rossi has any 'industrial' activity appart from simple office appartment in Florida and mostly empty building in Bologna. There is no evidence for 'customers'. There is no evidence that even Focardi has seen ecat running more than these short demos. We have plenty of evidence that there has been numerous 'delays'. Therefore we have all the reasons to believe that this is indeed one man show, with perhaps few collaborators.--Jouni Valkonen (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the Italian edition of the International Business Times inteviews the CEO of Prometeon (ie the official Italian licensee of the Energy Catalyzer) to reveal their business plan:

• Original in Italian
• Google translation in English

IBTimes: In una sua precedente intervista ha dichiarato di essere rimasto impressionato del fatto che l’E-cat funzionasse per 12 ore ininterrottamente senza energia elettrica. Siamo di fronte ad un cambiamento epocale nel modo di concepire l’energia?

TRANSLATION:

IBTimes: In a previous interview, you affirmed to be impressed by the fact that the E-Cat worked for 12 hours straight without electricity. Are we facing a sea change in the way of thinking about energy?

--Insilvis (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love the quote about how Leonardo Corp has a computer and they can see our wikipedia edits! "Yes, there are people … changing Wikipedia entries with blatant falsehoods. However both the Leonardo Corporation, which is fully equipped on the computer it is able to easily trace those responsible" Bhny (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So yet another pointless interview with an E-Cat promoter. We know they make wild claims. We also know that such wild claims have never been followed up by verifiable evidence. The International Business Times certainly doesn't seem to be reporting that anything works. Then again, the 'hot cat' tests that the promoter is speaking about so enthusiastically seems to be the same one that the Swedish investors reported didn't work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was pointless. Are you able to read Italian, by the way? Tmccc (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview, made by a business publication, to the CEO of a company about their business plan.--Insilvis (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the website of the company, [[8]], I read "Il sito ufficiale italiano del rivoluzionario reattore a fusione fredda ..." ("the official italian website of the revolutionary reactor working with cold fusion". Now, do you really believe that the CEO of the supposed "italian official distributor" of the E-Cat could say that the E-Cat is an hoax? Again, nothing new ... again a demonstration that nothing can be written about the E-Cat, at least with independent sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the fascinating part of the e-Cat isn't even Andrea Rossi or the device itself, but the hoard of "fans" that seem to keep this whole thing going. There are dozens of websites, industrial designers, and what seems like a legion of true believers that are infatuated with the idea. That the Rossi dog and pony shows seem to fuel excitement in that legion of fans is even more interesting. That seems to me as the real story here that needs an article, even if the e-Cat itself is a total fraud. If anything, the "independent reliable sources" seem to be reporting more about that phenomena than anything else. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for notability. In past 1 year, any talk of cold fusion has to include Ecat. Though its not proven to work, its not proven to NOT work also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.138.200 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — 75.177.138.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. More than enough press coverage to be notable, and will eventually join the exalted ranks of N rays and Polywater. -- 202.124.74.198 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012

If you can find any content that should be added to this article that can be backed up by reliable sources, is verifiable, and includes information not already in this article, I will back you up to get it included. While there are certainly several editors working on this article who would like to chop this whole article down to one sentence saying "The E-Cat is a fraud invented by Andrea Rossi." and have that added to the Rossi article, I think there are better NPOV ways of dealing with this issue. Please help us make Wikipedia better by at least trying to make a good faith effort with this article. I admit there is an article ownership issue with this article, but that just shows some of the issues related to this article needing a wider range of voices participating in its development. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP." nice motivation. I can just invite you, as Robert Horning, to edit it, but remember to include independent sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I'm pretty satisfied with the article as-is and don't see any significant problems, including any rationale for why it needs to be deleted... which is sort of the point why this AfD is even being done. There has certainly been edit warring going on as well reverting good faith edits in some cases without cause, so I do think the above criticism has some merit. At the moment I don't see any glaring omissions that can be accounted from credible sources though, but I will evaluate suggested sources that are posted on the article talk page if there might be something worth looking at. I'm also trying to offer a hand out here to suggest that those editing this article aren't necessarily out to prove Rossi is a fraud and are biased to writing an Andrea Rossi hit piece.... which goes against WP:NPOV and is a foundational principle of Wikipedia. Reminding editors involved here that we need to consider all viewpoints when writing articles is very well justified. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Due to the edit warring I've just fully protected the article for one day. Let me know if there are any edits that need to be done through protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be enough independent coverage to satisfy notability. The contents of the article are contentious, but overall the article seems to track the sources.--Nowa (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same reason we have an article on Steorn, or any of the fringe science subjects mentioned in Park's book Voodoo Science -- Limulus (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original proposer of the Delete seems to have disappeared, and since there seems to be an overwhelming majority for keep -- there's only ONE other vote for delete (and only a few arguing for a merge)--- isn't it time to wrap this up? And put a time limit (say a year) before any other nomination is accepted ? Alanf777 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a change in AfD policies, this isn't the place to do it. And why do you say that the proposer has disappeared? [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) OK. b) User:TheNextFuture Seems to be "redlinked" Alanf777 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was just the first voter. Anyway, there's only one other delete vote. Is there a record of who made the nomination then? Alanf777 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redlink just means he/she hasn't created a user page. As the page history shows, TheNextFuture started the AfD, though I can't see what difference it makes - anyone with an account can propose one, or an IP can ask someone with an account to do it for them - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Anyway WP:Articles for deletion says "at least 7 days". We're there. Alanf777 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'At least'. I'm sure someone will get around to it soon enough. Anyway, what's the hurry? The result looks like a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... maybe just a propensity to shed the "scarlet letter" ? Alanf777 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disappeared, I just believe I have written clear my point of view and that is meaningless to continue up to infinity to say, for example below, that "reliable sources" are primary for the E-Cat, the device; that "notable" refers to Andrea Rossi, etc ... --TheNextFuture (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per earlier arguments -- notable even if it doesn't work, reliable sources --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepSo that we can look back one day and realise that one way or another we will see just how many people wanted LENR to disappear, and we can then think about their motives as to why that might have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.197 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — 94.192.104.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Off wiki mailing list by Alanf777, Zedshort and others here: [10] which seems to constitute off-wiki canvassing IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant to this AfD - I suspect that the 'keep because it is notable bullshit' !votes have won the day, and it has always been apparent that cold fusion/LENR boosters have been active on Wikipedia. There have usually been enough responsible contributors around to keep their hype out of the article, though a few more wouldn't do any harm. Eventually most of this lot will probably move elsewhere, as even they get fed up with Rossi's endless 'jam tomorrow' promotions, contradictory statements (anyone know where the factory is this week?) and broken promises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, one person (not me) suggested "Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page." There was some discussion. The advice of another was : "My suggestion. If you are not a Wikipedia editor, *do not register in order to vote.* That will be totally transparent to the Wikipedia community ...". Specifically, I did not canvas for anything. Alanf777 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I informed arbcom first but they never got back. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to what is actually happening, how many people from this mailing list actually came here to vote, and will it actually influence the outcome of this AfD in any way? Fine, you've noted that this is happening. Perhaps the closing admin will take that into account. It should be pointed out that WP:VOTE also notes that the point is not simply to count votes but rather to engage in a process to reach consensus and to suggest a resolution. A bunch of "KEEP" or even "DELETE" votes is not going to really change the outcome if there isn't some meat to those votes that is based upon policy and logical reasoning. If something like this AfD encourages more people to participate in the article development process, it should be welcomed and not rejected. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like around 6 editors came to vote via canvassing; and yes it did have an impact as it sidelines the merge argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These announcements are typical in this kind of pseudoscience, the AfD of the E-Cat in it.wiki had the same problem, that time on facebook: here. This time at least it is written "read it and vote on its truswothiness", that time there was a direct invitation to play with the rules. The arguments about Essén and Kullander are wrong, but I don't want to start an another flame after Focardi. Notable does not mean a sacrifice of the sources, the sad point is that this discussion is too focused again on the notable part. Even more sadly, I don't think that this is due to that post. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic is somewhat new (earliest coverage I found was Phil’s Stock World January 24, 2011. However, the topic meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes (there's others): Industrial Heating January 1, 2012, Science Progress March 22, 2012 and there's plenty of non significant coverage of the topic for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. The article itself isn't too bad off (e.g., It's not so overloaded with non reliable source information that we need to delete). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2012 (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.