Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments
Entirely a POV fork, and the material can easily be incorporated into cold fusion.  This was created by an Arbcom-banned editor while the main article was locked due to edit warring, and further edited by a COI editor describing his own work.  There are few reliable sources that cover the topic; and no secondary ones that I'm aware of except for a brief mention in a biased book by a CF advocate. If the article is going to be more than a couple of paragraphs long, it's always going to consist of a lot of primary papers on both sides of the debate combined with a healthy degree of |OR and ynth|synthesis.  There's absolutely no reason why the points can't be covered in cold fusion.  You could make the same (probably stronger) arguments in favor of nuclear detections in cold fusion experiments or experimental error in cold fusion experiments.  As for Abd's comment, ''There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged undue weight.'', this is best handled in the CF article, at the RS noticeboard, or via dispute resolution, not by creating a separate article where we hold the sources to far lower standards than we do on the main article.  Besides, the verifiable material and related references in this fork are largely covered in Cold_fusion#Non-nuclear_explanations_for_excess_heat...despite Abd's claims of "exclusion" of this material, no one has attempted to add more information to this section since it was created a month ago, so exclusion is totally unproven.   In addition, the topic itself is not notable as something covered in reliable, independent secondary sources.  It's barely notable by its coverage by primary sources.  The two redlinks above are more notable
— User:Phil153, 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:S (Wikipedia:No original research)