Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination)
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
— User:RexxS, 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:REDFLAG (Wikipedia:Verifiability)