Deletion of Energy Catalyzer (2nd nomination)

Comment: and not merge.  First of all, the point of  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 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  requirements as well. Impossibility of the device isn't a grounds for removing it from wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I am sorry but I don't see how this article is . 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 http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-11-30/no-miracles-science-story-energy-catalyzer 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. ----  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Meets  with the various ongoing media coverage it has received.  The article manages to be  and I don't see any policy-based reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media attention, there is sufficient Non- 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The topic is somewhat new (earliest coverage I found was http://www.philstockworld.com/2011/01/24/italian-scientists-claim-to-have-discovered-nickelhydrogen-cold-fusion-create-copper-as-byproduct/ Phil’s Stock World January 24, 2011. However, the topic meets . Significant coverage includes (there's others): http://www.industrialheating.com/Articles/Column/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000001144269 Industrial Heating January 1, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22574387 Science Progress March 22, 2012 and there's plenty of non significant coverage of the topic for a stand alone article per . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)