Deletion of Energy Catalyzer

Comment: There appear to be plenty of secondary |sources about this.  Here's a sampling I found in just a couple minutes of Googling: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/ Forbes, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/italian-scientists-claim-dubious-cold-fusion-breakthrough Popular Science, http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin.html Network World, http://www.sciencenews.org/index.php/generic/id/74244/title/Gravely_damaged_brains_have_bottleneck/view/generic/id/75046/title/Nuclear_energy_As_Germany_goes%E2%80%A6 Science News, http://www.scotsman.com/opinion/John-Curtice-Hearts-and-minds.6785677.jp The Scotsman, etc.  I'm sure there are more if I spent more time looking for them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

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 eletion Policy and point out why this particular article doesn't qualify
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: as the number of newspaper articles clearly shows the subject is notable enough for an article (see ). If and how it works is really of no relevance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

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 &ndash; 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 &ndash; 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 &ndash; not scientific &ndash; 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  could be diluted if not ameliorated by putting a limited, appropriate amount of material into a suitable parent article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: We have a lot of policies that we can haggle over. However, on the top level, only  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Nothing in the nomination really stands up. We do cover scams and nonsense science. Anything else is a question of  and editing, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I have suggested in the past that this article be deleted, but it seems to me that this nomination is flawed. It isn't up to Wikipedia to assert that this is a scam, even when faced with such clear indications that it may well be. And nor is it our job to declare that it is 'scientifically impossible' - we would need to find a source that said that about Rossi's magic teapot 'E-Cat' itself. No, the question should be ''is it possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this''? There are ''a few'' sources that seem to meet  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)