Deletion of CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination)

Comment: Perhaps a case of pathological science, and I'm not holding my breath for it to ever be an energy source, but it had mainstream media coverage in the 1990s and satisfies , since notability is not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The article attempts to make exceptional claims based on non-reliable sources and is a classic violation of  - 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 Wikipedia. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:REDFLAG)