Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by POVbrigand (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 1 December 2011 (→CETI Patterson Power Cell). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:27, 1 December 2011 by POVbrigand (talk | contribs) (→CETI Patterson Power Cell)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

CETI Patterson Power Cell

AfDs for this article:
CETI Patterson Power Cell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable electrolysis device. No Significant coverage outside of this on-line review which does not seem to be from a reliable source. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Despite the enthusiastic claims to the contrary from the cold-fusion boosters, this device has led to absolutely zero response in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific sources. It seems only to have survived a previous AfD because of media attention(back in the mid 1990s) - and the media doesn't seem to be showing an interest any more. As an article about anything of scientific merit, it is singularly lacking evidence. As a magnet for POV-pushers, it seems to be highly attractive - but Misplaced Pages isn't here to publicise their contraptions, or their wild claims. If and when 'cold fusion' is recognised by mainstream science, Misplaced Pages can discuss it - but we aren't here to provide hype, speculation, and opportunities for dubious characters to flog magic teapots to the gullible. And no, www.padrak.com isn't a reliable source for anything remotely science-based (or reality-based, I suspect) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Invalid argument per Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary Notability was assessed in the last AfD with the result to keep --POVbrigand (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • HOLD ON I'm working on this article. The version on the page doesn't really reflect the real content. There are many more sources.
this is the actual article at this moment
this is the one you nominated for deletion
84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — 84.106.26.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. This article isn't new. It isn't a developing situation. If there were any remotely-useful sources (as opposed to the usual junk) they would have been found. they don't exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The short version of the article needs two or three paragraphs which explain, in very simple terms, why the PPC has been the topic of dozens of scientific and mass-media reports. Who alleges "excess heat", and how much, and what tests have been performed. And who alleges nuclear transmutations, and what tests have been performed. And were any of the tests conducted in accordance with scientific standards? These questions can be answered in a few paragraphs, giving the average reader (Misplaced Pages customers) the information they need to understand the PPC and the controversy about it.
The PPC produces hydrogen gas, which readily diffuses into solid nickel (see hydrogen embrittlement). Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer depends on this kind of diffusion. The PPC and the E-Cat are two peas in the same pod, so if you delete one of those articles you should delete the other article too.
Don't make yourselves look foolish. AnnaBennett (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Change to Neutral Delete I finished checking source 8 when I figured that the rest were just as poor quality and gave up. Websites like the New Energy times are not enough to establish notability outside of a small fringe circle. CETI is specific is mentioned recently in passing but not substantially outside of fringe publications, including their press releases. Furthermore, WP does WP:NOT exist to host "the next big thing," we create articles after something becomes big. If this device truly does what it says it does, then it will be featured in every science journal in the world soon enough, and when it is we will have an article on it. If it doesn't (and it's been 15 years), then it was just a minor blip in the history of impossible perpetual motion machines and nothing to write home about. Looks like the article sourcing has been cleaned up a bit. I'm still not convinced that it's notable but I'm on the fence that it isn't. Nformation 08:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • delete - per nom; NN fringery William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
What is NN fringery ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
("NN" means "Non-Notable", as in not passing the general notability guide). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article attempts to make exceptional claims based on non-reliable sources and is a classic violation of WP:REDFLAG - see Talk:CETI Patterson Power Cell#Importance of reliable sourcing and verifiability for a partial list. The cell itself is the subject to patents and garnered a little interest about 15 years ago by making unsubstantiated claims of output power 4,000 times the power input and that's about all that can be said. The rest of the article is pure fringe and demonstrates that it is being used as a COATRACK to hang wild claims of cold fusion on. We already have a properly written, sourced and developed article on that topic. This article is attempting to revive all of the issues that quack sources brought to the field and deserves no place on Misplaced Pages. The article was not "greatly improved" by stuffing it with garbage cites and I reject Barts1a's assertion that it is better sourced. Masses of non-reliable sources do not equal better sourcing, they simply create an illusion of sourcing for those who do not examine them. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, improve The nominator is wrong in stating that there is no RS. Read these RS: , , and . Please note that this device is not a current ongoing topic, it is history in the field of cold fusion and the CETI patterson power cell has its importance in the history of cold fusion. George H. Miley from University of Illinios Urbana-Champaign has spent considerable time investigating this device. FWIW, it even got a patent. As long as the article represents the device as not scientifically proven, there is nothing wrong with having an article on this notable cold fusion device. Just because Rossi is currently stirring up the media coverage with his Energy Catalyzer (which article survived a AfD), doesn't mean that the few articles about other noteworthy cold fusion devices should be suddenly up for deletion. Deletion would be an overreaction to the last edits, the best solution is to just revert back to an older version that doesn't depend non-RS.
- It is mentioned on page 36 of this book on cold fusion published in 2009 by ENEA (Italy), so it still is notable. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC) Please note that before this AfD I have made no edits to this article. 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.
- The device is mentioned in the book "The science of the cold fusion phenomenon" By Hideo Kozima published by Elsevier, Sep 26, 2006
- The device is mentioned in the book "Excess heat: why cold fusion research prevailed" by Charles G. Beaudette 2002
And according to Google Books it is mentioned in several other books. Deleting this for Notabilty would be a grave mistake, which would call for immediate deletion review. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
On February 7, 1996, ABC News shows Good Morning America and Nightline featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell. Good Morning America followed up the story one year later, on June 11, 1997
  • Comment Nomimator's editing behaviour raises some eyebrows for me. He/she has made almost no edits in the past and starting today has made a barrage of AfDs in little more than 1 hour time. I just wonder how he/she gained all this AfD knowhow during the dormant period. And how the nominator stumbled upon this page. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable fringe topic. I've looked through the sources, and almost all of them are unreliable and fringe, and the remaining one is questionable. No significant independent coverage to establish notability. Obvious promotional WP:COATRACK for fringe "cold-fusion" theory. Can be deleted in its entirety. There is nothing worth saving here. The article can never be brought up to WP standards. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    That is just not true. Please explain why you think that physicsworld.com, www.wired.com, New scientists (www.sciam.com) and ieeexplore.ieee.org are unreliable and fringe. Notability was already established in 2007. Please explain why you think that "Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion" - by Bart Simon is fringe and unreliable. Please explain why you think that Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications published by Wiley is fringe and unreliable. The patterson power cell is a notable cold fusion device, which doesn't mean that is accepted to work. It is not a coatrack for cold fusion theory. The article was fair enough up to WP standard for the last 4 years. Yes it is a fringe topic, but there is no reason to delete it and certainly not for such uninformed reasoning. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Because consensus can change and notability is a judgement call depending on consensus. 2007 is not now and we don't have be ruled by the dead hand of a 4 year old AfD. I do see a value in your reasoning, but when you look at the passing mention of this device in the reliable sources, it is very borderline for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". You could sum up this article thus: "James A. Patterson developed and patented an electrolytic cell in the mid-1990s. The cell was used to attempt to create cold fusion. Some claims of success were made and received some media attention. Subsequently none of the claims have been substantiated by any mainstream research." - and to be honest that deserves possibly half a paragraph in a section in the Cold fusion article. By the way, a Google search on "patterson power cell" (the phrase) returns 187 results, not 32,000 and you probably already know that ghits are a poor indicator of notability - RexxS is more notable than "patterson power cell" by that standard (about 21,800 ghits) and I don't see anyone queueing up to complain about the absence of my article! --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes concensus can change, but notability is still given. It has even gained notability, as a few newer RS have also mentioned it. Now I am with you when you say the article could be much smaller. Since the AfD has started already a lot of the unnecessary non-RS bloat has been deleted. Regarding the google search, I already found that out myself and corrected the comment :-) But there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about this device and I lately note that there is a lot of "hatred" for anything that is cold fusion. This device was part of the research of a very well respected scientists (Miley being a Fellow APS, fellow ANS, fello IEEE and fellow NATO) Now that doesn't mean this device works, but it also shouldn't be dismissed as is currently done here in this AfD. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Notability is not a given; it must be shown to be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and it has been shown to be notable. The device is mentioned in enough reliable sources. If you would count them you would run out of fingers on both your hands. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Instead of speculating it is better if you list the sources that have significant coverage of the device. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think, unless someone can convince me otherwise based on policy. I spotted Wired, and a US Patent among the sources. That's pretty dang solid sourcing if you ask me. Could someone explain why something that is sourced from Wired could possibly be NN? It can be a lot of other things, but NN and RS aren't among them. I'm not saying it works or doesn't work (though I have my suspicions ;-) ), but rather, it has been reported on, those reports are in the archives, and thus anyone can check that yes, at some time, someone proposed this concept. Whether or not the concept sucks is a different matter, irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Patents are primary sources. I wouldn't rely on primary sources for reliability. Are you claiming a mention in Wired confers notability? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Wired is a reasonably reliable source, as far as mainstream magazine coverage is ever going to go, and perfectly adequate here. What's wrong with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The patent bureau is a reliable (canonical) source wrt the existence of a patent. The content of the patent is not necessarily relevant qua notability (qua reliability is another question entirely).
From my own (n=1) experience with a wired journalist, they may not exactly always be equally accurate, but they do spell people's names right afaik, and thus are also a reliable source wrt actual existence of this project, and probably have at least the general gist of things right too. But that aside, they're a 3rd party source, so we can write what they said. We don't need to agree with them for NPOV purposes. Whether the project was successful or not, or fraudulent or honest, or whatever else we might think of them personally is not relevant. We have sufficient sources to build an article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Why should being a non-functional device excelude it from coverage? Our goal here is to explain things. Explaining frauds and crackpot devices is a valuable part of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are too few reliable sources to have an article on it. Creating an article on something mentioned in a handful of reliable sources sounds inherently problematic. In the last deletion discussion there was also promises on how the article would be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reductions made by Yworo and IRWolfie have made the article into a better source of information about the device, far less promotional and a little more skeptical. I think the article should be retained so that readers can be informed about the device's fraudulent nature. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a notable device: it's covered in Voodoo Science and in Wired. Whether it works or not is just not on our radar. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are now enough reliable sources to justify keeping the article. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough notability to justify an article on the subject.--Insilvis
  • Keep. There is a story of interest beyond the science due to the publicly surrounding it at the time, as has been stated here already. I believe that it is notable as an interesting news story for that time period if nothing else. Regarding Mr. Patterson's claims, those who actually examined the device, namely Dr. Miley and Dr. Cravens, both gave the claims credence after their respective examinations. As mentioned in the previous deletion attempt, Dr. Miley was a winner of the Edward Teller Medal in 1995. On the to the other hand, Huizeinga and Park are both better known for their criticisms than their scientific achievements. Huizeinga's statement that he "bet" it wouldn't work is conjecture, not science. As for peer-review, the PPC was never submitted for such. That fact in and of itself does not make claims invalid. To argue otherwise would be a logical fallacy. As a matter of record, there are NO logical arguments to delete this article. The fact that it was nominated for deletion a second time in such a short time span, for reasons that have no logical basis, is bothersome.Badhillbili (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: The sourcing isn't impeccable, but it appears to have been mentioned in sufficient reliable sourcing to justify a Misplaced Pages article. On a related note, I'm not sure why a small group of editors take it so personally that there might be articles in Misplaced Pages related to cold fusion. My advice to them...it's not about you, it's about presenting the information and letting the reader decide. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    On the contrary, the sourcing is a disgrace. A few reliable sources are being used to coatrack multiple unreliable sources and unsubstantiated claims into this article. There's nothing personal about the topic, but it defies belief that "presenting the information" should include such sourcing as these that appeared recently:
    Forrest Sawyer (1996-01-07). Nightline (Television Show). United States: ABC News. - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
    Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff - what makes earthtech a RS?
    http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html - how can this be considered a RS?
    Good Morning America (Television Show). United States: ABC News. 1996-01-07. - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
    Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79.(archive) - what makes newenergytimes.com a RS?
    Jet Rothwell, Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Technology Magazine, One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated December 7, 1995 - what makes Cold Fusion mag a RS (it's self-published, not an MIT-reviewed source)?
    Transcript of ABC-TV "Good Morning America" Program on Cold Fusion Excess Energy and Radioactivity Reduction, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by Infinite Energy magazine. - what makes Infinite Energy mag a reliable source?
    Bill Jenkins (1997-06-16). Free Energy - The race to zero point (VHS). United States: Lightworks Audio Video. - what makes Lightworks Audio Video a RS?
    Notable or not, the subject is simply not worth an article in Misplaced Pages and the chronic appallingly low ratio of decent sources to garbage sources amply demonstrates that. Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for an article to exist. --RexxS (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    The problem are the edits from IP 84.106. I have reverted them. It seems that editor is not capable to understand what he is causing and keeps on pushing stuff in as if he is desperately trying to get this article deleted. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not a requirement that all refs meet WP:RS - it depends on the use to which individual cites are put, and on the claims made. It's a requirement that there are refs to WP:RS, so as to demonstrate notability - we have those. As to the rest, then unfortunately it's a matter for copyediting on a cite by cite basis (and the work this entails). A ref to "Good Morning America" is a reasonable cite for it having appeared on national TV, but not for a claim "the machine was demonstrated working on TV" (it's not a competently controlled experiment), or that "national TV figures applauded the machine and agreed that it worked" (we no longer trust people's competence, just because they're on TV). I'm sorry, but this means some hard copyediting work by unbiased editors (who can be brutal if they have to) - that's the price of a quality encyclopedia. What we can't do is let unreliable claims slip past, but nor are we really allowed to simply delete refs without analysing their context. Nor can we delete an article because it contains weak refs as well as string ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes Andy, I fully agree with you. Some sources are rock solid RS, some are never RS and for the others it depends on how you use them. We can go through them one by one and see if and how we can add them. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Finding it WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument for a keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
IRWolfie, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. It might well be the first AfD for this editor.
@Gravitoweak, if you feel that this article should stay, then maybe you can look at what other editors who want this article deleted say about it and respond to that. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:ONEEVENT. I'd recommend looking into the histories of the keep votes where you will find dedicated cold-fusion-promotion accounts. It is a not very-well kept secret that cold fusion promoters routinely ask their friends to start Misplaced Pages accounts to help them POV-push here. That's what's going on here. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • So how do you explain my 'keep' comment? I have made many tens of thousands of Misplaced Pages edits, very very few in cold fusion. You may be right about a few editors but the generalization falls down in the face of people like me. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You misinterpreted me. Not every 'keep' comment is the provenance of a cold-fusion-promoter. But looking into the histories of the keep voters will reveal some who are, and that should be considered when evaluating the "consensus" of this discussion. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh? At the moment, the article pretty much suggests the device is a fraud (based on reliable sources). If anything, those of the opinion that we should delete must be the cold fusion proponents! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Also, to reach consensus: attack the argument, not the arguer.
I think you'll find that in that cold fusion community they think that any external notice, no matter how critical, is something for which to strive. Short of writing in big letters, "Cold fusion is bunk, nothing to see here" on top of every article, they're going to be in favor of keeping as much in the hopper as possible. The ostensible goal of the cold fusion community is to obtain serious consideration of their various approaches and ideas. They are 100% convinced that if the relevant epistemic communities just paid attention to them, they will win the battle. This in spite of the fact that the periodic reviews of their field that have occurred have all turned up nothing new. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, we won't quite do that, because AFD is not a vote to begin with ;-) . If people's arguments are valid, they will be taken into account. WP is nice that way. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What I see with this vote for deletion is inappropriate use of Wiki criteria and appeals to prejudice but no rational arguments. The use of WP:ONEEVENT is not appropriate. That tag, according to the definition, regards INDIVIDUALS notable for one event. The PPC is not an individual or an event. The voter also makes several generalizations about the nature of those who vote for Keep without addressing the main issue, which is the criteria for which this article should be deleted based on the merits or lack thereof. In addition, repeated and sweeping generalizations about any group of people are prejudicial in nature and I object to the repeated use of such in regards to this discussion.Badhillbili (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And out of the woodwork they come! 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite. Though I still think I said it more nicely. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC) And AFD is not -in fact- a vote. We deliberately renamed it to emphasize that fact. :-P
You indicated that Misplaced Pages doesn't care if it's being misused as a propaganda piece as long as the arguments being twisted can trick the regulars. I'm just pointing out what's going on. You guys can take it or leave it. Claiming that this non-notable device has had more than notice for a singular event is unreasonable. Oh, WP:ONEEVENT only applies to people does it? Well, guess what: There is a particular person to whom I'm referring: James A. Patterson. This is subbing as a biography for him, and inappropriately so. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Your ideas do not correspond with WP policies. It appears to me you are trolling. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's low-notability, but low notability is not the only reason why articles get deleted; it's simply the most common one. A more pressing concern is that any article on this topic will be, by definition, a magnet for fringe beliefs, OR, and synthesis. With the more well-known conspiracy theory articles &c we have enough watchers; but with the really obscure topics it can be impossible to maintain encyclopædic quality. bobrayner (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I note that quality was an issue at the last AfD and it still seems to be an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is way better than last year's version. What aspect of it do you think is still an issue ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added a reliable source (Bart Simon) to the article. His book contains many additional facts about the PPC that might be worked into the article. Please take a look at it. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Categories: