Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer
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
— User:TenOfAllTrades, 22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:WEIGHT (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)