< 29 October | 31 October > |
---|
The result was delete. Tone 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
User generated terminology Muleattack ( talk) 23:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence that he meet WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola ( talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable backup dancer/actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of susbstance. reddogsix ( talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Non good-faith nomination. ( non-admin closure) WikiPuppies! ( bark) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
he is very bad man and their should be no article he very bad and evil bad man BillyFromPeru ( talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This is inherently WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Its only inclusion criterion is directly contradicted in the second sentence for "interest" which also makes it inherently WP:TRIVIAl. A quick survey of what's included in this list is an arbitrary—almost random—list of words which could include or exclude tens of thousands of entries. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
a list of words with unusual features is definitely encyclopedic. Also keep because it is the primary Article of the Category of the same name. Although there may be an element of OR in it, WP:COMMONSENSE tells us "Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No objections to any redirects that users may wish to put in Spartaz Humbug! 05:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
He's a non-notable MMA fighter with only 3 fights (1 win), none for a major promotion. His notability claim is being the son of a UFC Hall of Famer, but notability is not inherited.
I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT.
:
Philip De Fries (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) removed as mentioned in November 1 post
Keep all for which verifiable sources exist from Sherdog or MMAFighting, for example. Ryan Shamrock, at worst should redirect to his father's page in a section on personal life/family. There is certainly no pressing BLP need to delete the article altogether, however. -- 173.241.225.163 ( talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Bobby Emmons and give thru January 2012, I just don't want to have to remake his wiki page again after he fights for a top tier promotion to be considered "notable". 4 November 2011 at 11:53.
Philip De Fries is currently signed to the UFC most recently fighting at UFC 138. There is no reason to delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsfc08 ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced collection of definitions. This was a contested prod. → Σ τ c. 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Unremarkable local cable program. Little significant coverage from independent reliable sources, outside the school newspaper. Google news search on "Elon Tonight" ESTV shows zero results. Standard search shows mainly primary sources, social media, and user-generated sites. Awards do not appear notable - they appear to be from organizations that give out hundreds to anyone who enters. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion was declined because a statement was added to the article that this is "one of the largest Internet communities for Iranians". I can find no independent online sources in English to substantiate this, or anything else about the subject. It is possible that there are sources in Persian but I rather doubt it as this web site is written in English. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:RS is indeed a policy; WP:N is another. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability. The-Pope ( talk) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Please check new references added to the arcticle which enhance the overall article. Gibbletow 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow ( talk • contribs)
Its easy to say its spam and self promotion and bla bla without even going in depth of the article or finding who the person is .Gibbletow 10:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow ( talk • contribs) <--Gibbletow 13:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)!--Autosigned by SineBot--> reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, hoax. postdlf ( talk) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
All references turn up error pages, all internal links to his works point to this article. No mention of him on Google. There is a Michael Pleasant on imdb.com, but this seems so be a different person. Suspected hoax.
The result was keep. A really lenghty discussion. But, a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell. However, the subject received extensive coverage, therefore an existence of this article is justified. All issues can be addressed by editing the article and not by deleting it. So, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage, not here. Editors are reminded that the editing and sourcing of this article requires special care, as outlined in a previous arbitration case on cold fusion. Tone 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got the whole university backing you. Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. There is very strong evidence that a 1MW system of this has been sold to a customer - see Fox news . [9] where several eye witness reports are quoted. This is a very strange time to delete this, just as a massive publicity campaign is starting around the launch of this technology. And it is a disgrace to think this is 'pseudo-science' as 2 well known physicists based at one of the oldest universities in the world (Bologna) are working on this. A colleague, who studied under Focardi, has confirmed his credentials to me, so I personally know this is no simple scam as implied by the afd campaign.-- hughey ( talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. It is not based on junk science but on the works of Focardi et al. who published in "Il nuovo cimento", the most important Italian physics journal. See "Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems". Stengl ( talk) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Afd not justified. Wshymanski what you know about the energy catalyzer and cold fusion wouldn't fill the tiny amount of space between your ears. Why don't you go rub the two iq points you have together and see if you can start a fire like cavemen in the past. Stop wasting our time. Ldussan ( talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. If the reason for deletion is that you believe the device is a scam, why not wait just another 3 months or 6 months to let it be proven a scam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.34 ( talk) 11:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Afd not justified. Forbes has 3 articles on it in last 15 days. It has made news for last 10 months in wash post, fox news also. As yet, nobody knows for sure, if its a scam or something real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.164.26 ( talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Afd not justified. This is not a free energy scam or pseudoscience(it has not been proved to be a scam or pseudoscience). It seems like a tendentious Afd proposal made by someone who doesn′t like the subject of the article.-- 86.125.176.31 ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Afd not justified. There is no pseudoscience involved AND media coverage is quite respectable.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
109a152a8a146 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC). reply
Keep. Afd is definitely unnecessary at this stage. There's plenty of WP:RS, and increasing amounts of it. Call for deletion is malicious at best. Tmccc ( talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Although there are certainly various problems with the article, but it clearly meets the GNG and so regardless of whether it really works or not, we should have an article about it. SmartSE ( talk) 13:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. After reading multiple popular press reports, I want to go to Wikipedia to see objective analysis and references. Of course, there's a high probability that it is a hoax, but I trust Wikipedia to have a great article for and against. I was especially interested in whatever's known about the science which is not well covered in popular media. I don't know where the article belongs, but Wikipedia does provide a needed service as a central objective source of information. FlintOBrien —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC). reply
Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.88.234 ( talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - that way, when the truth about all this is revealed, and it becomes clear that an article on a world-changing event was censored away by pathological skeptic fiat, the blatant editorial bias of Wikipedia and their complete lack of historical perspective will be revealed in all their tawdry shame. Antimatter33 ( talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Can we all just calm down a little, stop accusing each other of ignorance/bias/delusion/closed-mindedness and stick to the sources? It's just an article. 109a152a8a146 ( talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
(strong) Delete This is the definition of free energy, which is always a scam. The proposed method would rewrite more physics than the CERN FTL discovery, and this is not being handled in any way, shape or form like that is. It's a classic "secretive black box that does X" and this article is probably mostly marketing for it put up by individuals involved in said scam. Merge this to Cold Fusion, because that's exactly what the claim is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 ( talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/2/ -- perhaps someone could add that? Thousands and thousands of people have read about Rossi and the E-cat. It needs to be available via Wikipedia. Maryyugo ( talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Duh!
Time Cube gets an article, but not the
Energy Catalyzer? "If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago."
Red herring much? If I had a nickel's-worth for every argument that was this flawed, I would have all the money in the world.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
reply
Strong Keep. Alanf777 ( talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep The attempt to delete smacks too much of the attempt at the defacto censorship that the cold fusion/LENR field has suffered for the past twenty-two years. This is one device that stands out among all the rest for its substantial amount of net heat out and its high COP (coefficient of performance). The claims by Rossi are that it produces heat but none of the expected emissions that hot fusion would be expected to produce and it appears to work that way. He is not claiming it works by chemical means and suggests some other not fully explained pathway causes the transmutation of elements and heat output. The fact that he does not deliver a complete, tested and pier reviewed and vetted paper that completely explains its operation does not negate the fact that it does produce substantial amounts of heat reliably makes the e-cat noteworthy of everybody and even a few articles in the popular media. In the past, it was not unusual for a new invention to be brought forth and sold on the market before the theories of physics caught up enough to fully explain the device’s operation. It is unusual today for that to happen but keep in mind that the last page of physics has not been written (and never will) and the next page, I suspect, will be about LENR. For what it is worth, I am a mechanical engineer, I know how to perform an energy balance on such a system, I have seen the data posted by Ny-Tecknic and find it produces substantial heat. Although the experiment could have been slightly improved there is no change that could have been made that would have negated the amount of heat produced and so changed the result and my conclusion that it works. It works and not by way of any chemical means.
The repeated labeling this as a “scam” or declaring that it is based on “pathological” science is not sufficient to justify it’s deletion. Surely there have been many scams in the past and will be in the future but for me this case does not pass the duck test. All the people involved seem to be behaving totally unlike scammers and the deluded can’t stand the light of day for too long. Zedshort ( talk) 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Although mainstream peer-reviewed publications are hard to find, no surprise after the Fleischmann-Pons demise, the movie put on Youtube by Dr. Brian Josephson in which he discusses with his coleague Judith Driscoll the interest of this invention is well worth watching. They are both professors of physics, and materials science, respectively at Cambridge University. In fact Brian Josephson won the Nobel Prize for phyiscs in 1973, so if that doesn't account for scientific stature i don't know what you would be looking for. Brian Josephson video 217.149.200.230 ( talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No offence but I have been following this issue since February and read the article and Talk on it over time. It seems to me that AndyTheGrump and Wtshymanski have been pushing this deletion line for some time when clearly the better thing is to wait for a time. They keep repeating that it is simply a scam and impossible and should be deleted. They seem keen to act straight away, what is the sense of urgency? Unless something happens, isn't it just going to sit largely as it is? Please note I do not think it is appropriate to say it is a fake or not. That is not up to us. I understand both points of view and am waiting for a while longer for events (this situation is highly unusual in my opinion, even for a scam, even for an experimental breakthrough). However, reputable scientists have been involved in this project and it has been widely reported. It has been discussed in scientific circles, according to my scientist/executive friend in automation and robotics. In addition, it has clearly and patently been widely reported in journals as an event. The site does not sponsor Rossi. Whatever its formal rules, Wikipedia functions as a non-commercial information base for the public including on public events. I think those who are in favour of deletion should rather argue for shortening the article. I don't understand why persons are referring to such an editing process as impossible or extremely difficult. I have done professional editing for 12 years in total and can't see any problem. Deleted details can be found by interested viewers on the blog sites if they are interested. If new information supports Rossi's claims the article can be re-expanded. That's the beauty of the Internet, it's flexible. Star A Star ( talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star A Star ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Star A Star ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep (Strong) It really does not matter whether this Energy Catalyzer or Low Energy Nuclear Fusion are true or a hoax/wishful thinking. The terms E-CAT and LENR are all over the Internet, and therefore people like me need a place to look them up. They seem to be a fixture of the modern world, and that alone makes this page needed. -- Wikipedia has articles about other "untrue" things like Alchemy, and about other trademarked things like the iPod, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.37.71 ( talk) 07:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Rossi is using the web on unfair terms to propagandized his alleged invention but he refuses till now to submit it to any form of serious, indipendent and scientifically correct test . Moreover, so far he has not fulfilled any of his numerous announcements. If the invention of a new form of energy is a fake, deleting articles about the so called Energy Catalyzer it will contribute to avoid potential scams. To the contrary, if the invention is real and works, deletion will stimulate Rossi to provide suitable proofs for is extraordinary claims. Chiostri ( talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (moved from the talk page by SmartSE ( talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC) ) reply
Delete. Even LENR researchers keep saying that Rossi continues to avoid simple changes in the testing procedures that could easily validate his claim. Yet Rossi refuses time after time. Still after all this time Rossi refuses to allow notable academic scientists who specialize in Nuclear physics & energy measurements to sign a NDA and have it verified. Rossi won't even give out the name of this so-called American company that's going to buy the eCat. In my firm opinion, the eCat is all a big fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.65.26 ( talk) 14:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Brian Josephson, a nobel laureate endorses this article. Where does the nominator stand in front of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.47 ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. While the science behind this article may be legitimately questioned, the article itself should be allowed to remain with the caveats that the test has not been duplicated by peer review. Until this occurs, the article should be categorized as an "unverified" test. Richardbamberg ( talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)— Richardbamberg ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment. Wtshymanski has asserted that the Energy Catalyzer is a "scam" and that it "should not have an independent article". Wtshymanski has recommended that the article about the E-Cat be deleted.
Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-Cat, asserts that the E-Cat produces more energy than it consumes. However, he has declined to give complete details about his invention in order to protect his intellectual property.
Dr. George Miley has publicly stated that he and his associates have built a “generalized heat source” that "can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts"( http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/mr-rossi-goes-to-market-dr-miley-and-others-hope-to-follow/). Dr. Miley asserts that this generalized heat source generates heat by low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Dr. Miley is a well-respected scientist and, based on his report, I am willing to give Andrea Rossi the benefit of the doubt — for the next six months. During that time, he will probably sell one or more additional 1 megawatt E-Cats and, as his patent applications are approved, he will be able to disclose more details about his invention. At that point, scientists will be able to build or buy E-Cats and verify Rossi's claims.
I recommend that this AfD be closed now. AnnaBennett ( talk) 11:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Grouping sources here, some comments:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep Removing this article would not be an error: it will be a fault. A lot of people are ennoyed because they cannot reproduce this device. ( Me the first ! ) That is a fact that the patent is not sufficient to make one: some it's features are protected by the secret: try once to build a B-2 bomber or an atomic bomb with the public patents and press pictures: it will be at least so difficult ! But, working as described or not, this device exist: it's a fact ! A lot of people are speaking about it, it's possible to order one. Perhaps most of people doesn't like Mr Rossi's communication strategy: that's their right, that his choice ! First, you cannot delete this article exactly as you cannot delete the articles: perpetual movement, phantom, ectoplasm, spiritism, aso ! If you delete this article, perhaps you have also to delete the article on God or Satan ! You can only inform that the system is doubtful for specific reasons ! ( and precise these reasons ) Second: this device is perhaps the most annoyng device of History for both petrol and nuclear industry. For that reason: the article must stay. And perhaps,in a few months, if somebody proves seriously that this device doesn't work , precise in the item that it was a fraud... ( Fraud, but existing ! ) -- Bmrpire ( talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment This 'discussion' should never have been reopened. No new points are being brought forward, and it's going around in circles. One useful thing to come out of it is POVbrigand's long list of available sources, including major publications such as la Repubblica, Daily Mail, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The only challenged source seems to be some small paper called 'Church Falls News'. A lot of the articles present balanced views and are suitable sources for both sides of the argument that seems to be at the heart of this discussion (i.e. the eCat does/doesn't work). I really fail to understand the argument against it being notable. 109a152a8a146 ( talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 01:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
no indication of notability. Disputed prod. References show she has been published not that she is notable. noq ( talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
In my view, anyone who has five published books is notable. Also, I looked at your history. You seem to spend most of your time deleting other people's work, often over loud objections. How many books have you had published? Karen Anne ( talk) 16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Karen Anne ( talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Karen Anne ( talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Karen Anne ( talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. It appears that sources have been found establishing the topic's notability. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Only given reference does not mention him. No indication of WP:notability. noq ( talk) 16:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks, DCI talk 23:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete : In-spite of the above facts I do not think Matta needs an article on it-self. There are many such persons whose name may appear in History of India, that does not mean each one qualifies for notability. The article of Matta can be added to Chach of Alor rather. Jethwarp ( talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musical group lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix ( talk) 15:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to WrestleMania XXVIII. The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and I can't find a source - except for an event between thest two April 1st 2012 in Miami Dougweller ( talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by IP. Seems to be a non-notable theory of the author's own invention. None of the alleged references or external links seems to be relevant to establishing its notability. Google Books and Scholar come up blank making it unverifiable and, almost certainly, original research. DanielRigal ( talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per criterion G3. At this moment, the article is nothing more than unsourced speculation which is not verifiable on the web. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced. No evidence that this is notable. (PROD contested with no reason given.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article, has been kicking around for a couple of years, orphaned, and appears to be a spam magnet. Discovered this while Huggling when it was one long advertisement. Now stubbified. A search of Google News shows one Reuters news story from 2007, concerning a venture not mentioned in this article and unclear if there are more than that, suggesting that the topic simply does not meet notability criteria. Created by an SPA; original version itself questioned notability, saying "real programs are out there, finding them is the hard part." Should be deleted or merged with private placement. ScottyBerg ( talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
random collection of statements based around a dictionary definition. No sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 12:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unsure if this article is really suitable for an encyclopedia. I could find no evidence that this headlamp was actually ever implemented by any car manufacturer. A web search shows that numerous inventors other than the one mentioned here make similar claims, so the article is also a bit misleading. Apart from that, the article doesn't add much beyond what is obvious from the title itself ('... is a headlamp... ...without glaring effects.'), and reads more like a dictionary entry. My main concern though is that it seems to be a purely theoretical invention with little appliction. If this technology is actually being used in a real car, I would support keeping the text, but merged with headlamp. Otherwise it is just another unused invention amongst many similar ones 109a152a8a146 ( talk) 12:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
List if redundant. We have List of modern conflicts in the Middle East and List of modern conflicts in North Africa - inappropriate to use political organization to stand in for geographic area. – Richard BB 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:Bio; the only apparent 3d party coverage consists of two brief squib entries lacking in meaningful depth or breadth. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tone 13:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Vast majority of GNews hits on his name are pieces regarding his wife's death. Article in its current form is basically just a resume. Mbinebri talk ← 03:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a non-notable self-published college magazine. The lack of sources means the content is unverifiable by readers. Lots of personal opinions and original research. Prod was contested, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
General notability guideline - no significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. The only source simply lists the subject's name on a list of competitors. Neutrality talk 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Faith Church, Hungary. I'm going with the vote from the only established user Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Hetek is only one Hungarian congregation periodical. Even in Hungary it is not famous. Kerdezo ( talk) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
There are some 8 references to it in WP articles. It is much more known than the other congregational weeklies. Keep. Nedudgi ( talk) 11:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think very few Hungarian weeklies should have enwiki article. And Hetek is definitelly not among them, because non of any religious should. But let's see other opinions. -- Kerdezo ( talk) 07:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I find somewhat strange that the opinion of Kerdezo expplicitly contradicts the Hungarian Wiki page on Hetek, which claims that it is a knowledgable, important publication, in the leage HVG, Heti Válasz, 168 Óra, Magyar Narancs, and Élet és Irodalom, all widely read serious weeklies. Why did he not change the Hungarian article? Nedudgi ( talk) 11:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Patience, My Dear, patience. I certainly will. Now I only have put a couple of source needed sings there. The problem is, if one delete every sentence which has no independent source, there remains nothing. And I am not such a fun for deletion. I can pateintly wait some weeks. However as you suggest, I will certainly delete everything which would not have source. Kerdezo ( talk) 14:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Please, read my note about the only opponent. Euty ( talk) 11:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks Euty. It is important to know that Nedudgi is a Hungarian sock puppet soldier. Kerdezo ( talk) 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 07:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Author of non-notable website and books. All citations in the article are from her website, AskApril.com. Many of the claims in the article, such as "catalyst" behind Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, The Miss Universe pageant and the Hawaiian Governors Gala are actually attributed to Alfred Masini, as noted in independent sources. HNN New York Times Scanlan ( talk) 11:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. m.o.p 05:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability per WP:AUTHOR dubious. Main author User:طلال بن زيد is a single-purpose account (claims to be an admin, but isn't as far as I can see), possibly in a conflict of interest. bender235 ( talk) 09:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
( Arab cinema database) http://www.elcinema.com/person/pr1978206
And his name is in International database of films (Internet Movie Database) (IMDb)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4730962/
My opinion is that the article does not delete طلال بن زيد ( talk) 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by طلال بن زيد ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Listcruft that's managed to stick around since the earlier days of Wikipedia where such lists were commonplace and trivia was rampant. It has been mocked as one of "The Least Essential Wikipedia Pages" and casts a bad light on the project. Strong issues with notability, no references whatsoever, and virtually impossible to determine its completeness. Remurmur ( talk) 19:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete per jfgslo. The topic as a whole is not notable. There are no sources that discuss the topic, resulting in a mess of WP:OR. Karanacs ( talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETED by Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non English article in English wiki. Pearll's Sun TALK 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This orphaned article has been tagged as unsourced since March 2010 and it fails WP:GNG. I can find no reliable references to this measurement and the term doesn't appear to be employed in astronomy. I can locate a Huang Guoyou, but no association between him and this term. The article was de-PROD'd back in March 2010 with the claim that the unit is covered by a book. I checked that book but could not find a match on a search. There is a book reference to a "cosmoscopic domain" on the talk page, but not to a "cosmoscopic scale". There's no apparent reason to merge. Hence I'm proposing deletion. Regards, RJH ( talk) 06:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements and is borderline advertising. Deletion proposal tag was removed by anonymous user and replaced by bot which was again removed by anonymous user. Nominating for deletion. Tejanse ( talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason stated above; another name for the same business:
The result was delete. Tone 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO... doesn't fit CSD criteria. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to PASSOP. m.o.p 05:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Hardly meets WP:ANYBIO. Created by User:Refugeeadvocacy, very likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 ( talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No sources have been provided so the argument that this is unsourced has not been refuted. Can be restored once sources appear Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 ( talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Gene93k ( talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The way the article is written you would have thought there would be coverage somewhere, but I, too, can find absolutely nothing. Black Kite (t) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This disabled musician is only referenced by his Myspace page. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Generally non-notable organization with flash-in-the-pan notoriety in the popular press as filler several years ago. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was already redirected. Out-of-process redirections really should be undone to let AfDs play out, but since redirect was the likely end point here anyway... The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable primary school. Primary schools Are not considered inherently notable pet OUTCOMES. It has received passing mention in relationship to one event, but that isn't even at the level suggested in ONEVENT. I asked twice of the article's creator if he could explain the reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia as it wasn't obvious to me but he declined comment. Bongo matic 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Bongo matic 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted as CSD G3 by SchuminWeb. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:MADEUP thing that was allegedly created last week → Σ τ c. 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
It's obviously vandalism or hoax, not worth an AFD. Tagged. Secret account 01:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not mean meet the criteria of
WP:BIO. No Google hits, no reliable sources. The author is
related to the subject of this article and
also featured himself in the other Vlassopoulos article please note: Link not working due to deletion of linked article, therefore has a
WP:COI.
Dr.K.
λogos
πraxis
21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. m.o.p 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously-deleted article makes no claim of notability. Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable sources (book sources are directory information only, news sources don't seem to provide any coverage of the institution). Bongo matic 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I believe the article topic is not on its own a meaningful subject, as LGBT rights in Commonwealth countries are country-specific, it being an affiliated group of nations rather than a geographical or administrative grouping. It's consigned to be an original synthesis at worst or a list of information covered in the individual nations' articles at best; in neither case is there likely to be RS specifically for the article topic itself. In short, I'm AfDing this because it can only be a non-notable and synthesis-prone regrouping of notable information. Tristessa (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This aticle has been in an unsourced state, containing original research for years. The subject is not to be found in any search of scholarly material.
Most of the sources listed within the article are synthesized and the 2 that purported to be about the topic directly are nolonger available
[92]
[93].
Page should be deleted as
original research by
synthesis, and becuase the topic itself seems to fail the basic requirements of both
WP:GNG (from the point of view of not having significant coverage directly about it) and
WP:NRVE--
Cailil
talk
00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
reply
Another growing field of feminism in the 21st century is fat-positive feminism.
A New Fat-Positive Feminism
There is an ever-growing movement variously referred to as "size acceptance," "fat acceptance," "fat positive," ... While both women and men are involved, many organizations have a decidedly feminist take ...
NAAFA has had a feminist caucus since 1983; a lesbian group, since 1990. Fat-positive sexuality has always been part of fat lesbians' agenda.
The result was redirect to List of General Hospital characters. Since there are no comments suggesting this couple is notable, I have merely redirected, since most of the information is already in the target article. Black Kite (t) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is a cut and paste from: http://soapcentral.com/gh/whoswho/damian.php?&printonly=yes Wlmg ( talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. If this nomination was meant as a serious challenge to the subject's notability and/or to the notability standard at WP:POLITICIAN, the nominator is free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review and provide further explanation there. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relatively obscure and unknown public figure from the 70s and 80s. Does not meet notability guidelines. Hhhter ( talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
< 29 October | 31 October > |
---|
The result was delete. Tone 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
User generated terminology Muleattack ( talk) 23:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence that he meet WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola ( talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable backup dancer/actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of susbstance. reddogsix ( talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Non good-faith nomination. ( non-admin closure) WikiPuppies! ( bark) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
he is very bad man and their should be no article he very bad and evil bad man BillyFromPeru ( talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This is inherently WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Its only inclusion criterion is directly contradicted in the second sentence for "interest" which also makes it inherently WP:TRIVIAl. A quick survey of what's included in this list is an arbitrary—almost random—list of words which could include or exclude tens of thousands of entries. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
a list of words with unusual features is definitely encyclopedic. Also keep because it is the primary Article of the Category of the same name. Although there may be an element of OR in it, WP:COMMONSENSE tells us "Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No objections to any redirects that users may wish to put in Spartaz Humbug! 05:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
He's a non-notable MMA fighter with only 3 fights (1 win), none for a major promotion. His notability claim is being the son of a UFC Hall of Famer, but notability is not inherited.
I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT.
:
Philip De Fries (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) removed as mentioned in November 1 post
Keep all for which verifiable sources exist from Sherdog or MMAFighting, for example. Ryan Shamrock, at worst should redirect to his father's page in a section on personal life/family. There is certainly no pressing BLP need to delete the article altogether, however. -- 173.241.225.163 ( talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Bobby Emmons and give thru January 2012, I just don't want to have to remake his wiki page again after he fights for a top tier promotion to be considered "notable". 4 November 2011 at 11:53.
Philip De Fries is currently signed to the UFC most recently fighting at UFC 138. There is no reason to delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsfc08 ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced collection of definitions. This was a contested prod. → Σ τ c. 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Unremarkable local cable program. Little significant coverage from independent reliable sources, outside the school newspaper. Google news search on "Elon Tonight" ESTV shows zero results. Standard search shows mainly primary sources, social media, and user-generated sites. Awards do not appear notable - they appear to be from organizations that give out hundreds to anyone who enters. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion was declined because a statement was added to the article that this is "one of the largest Internet communities for Iranians". I can find no independent online sources in English to substantiate this, or anything else about the subject. It is possible that there are sources in Persian but I rather doubt it as this web site is written in English. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:RS is indeed a policy; WP:N is another. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability. The-Pope ( talk) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Please check new references added to the arcticle which enhance the overall article. Gibbletow 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow ( talk • contribs)
Its easy to say its spam and self promotion and bla bla without even going in depth of the article or finding who the person is .Gibbletow 10:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbletow ( talk • contribs) <--Gibbletow 13:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)!--Autosigned by SineBot--> reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, hoax. postdlf ( talk) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
All references turn up error pages, all internal links to his works point to this article. No mention of him on Google. There is a Michael Pleasant on imdb.com, but this seems so be a different person. Suspected hoax.
The result was keep. A really lenghty discussion. But, a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell. However, the subject received extensive coverage, therefore an existence of this article is justified. All issues can be addressed by editing the article and not by deleting it. So, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage, not here. Editors are reminded that the editing and sourcing of this article requires special care, as outlined in a previous arbitration case on cold fusion. Tone 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Prod contested. This is another free energy scam with a lot of self-promotional publicity but no science behind it. Unless this instance can be contextualized in the realm of pseudoscience or fraud schemes, it should not have an independent article. If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago. You can't achieve nuclear changes with chemical effects, not even if you've got the whole university backing you. Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. There is very strong evidence that a 1MW system of this has been sold to a customer - see Fox news . [9] where several eye witness reports are quoted. This is a very strange time to delete this, just as a massive publicity campaign is starting around the launch of this technology. And it is a disgrace to think this is 'pseudo-science' as 2 well known physicists based at one of the oldest universities in the world (Bologna) are working on this. A colleague, who studied under Focardi, has confirmed his credentials to me, so I personally know this is no simple scam as implied by the afd campaign.-- hughey ( talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. It is not based on junk science but on the works of Focardi et al. who published in "Il nuovo cimento", the most important Italian physics journal. See "Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems". Stengl ( talk) 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Afd not justified. Wshymanski what you know about the energy catalyzer and cold fusion wouldn't fill the tiny amount of space between your ears. Why don't you go rub the two iq points you have together and see if you can start a fire like cavemen in the past. Stop wasting our time. Ldussan ( talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. If the reason for deletion is that you believe the device is a scam, why not wait just another 3 months or 6 months to let it be proven a scam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.34 ( talk) 11:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Afd not justified. Forbes has 3 articles on it in last 15 days. It has made news for last 10 months in wash post, fox news also. As yet, nobody knows for sure, if its a scam or something real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.164.26 ( talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Afd not justified. This is not a free energy scam or pseudoscience(it has not been proved to be a scam or pseudoscience). It seems like a tendentious Afd proposal made by someone who doesn′t like the subject of the article.-- 86.125.176.31 ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Afd not justified. There is no pseudoscience involved AND media coverage is quite respectable.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
109a152a8a146 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC). reply
Keep. Afd is definitely unnecessary at this stage. There's plenty of WP:RS, and increasing amounts of it. Call for deletion is malicious at best. Tmccc ( talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Although there are certainly various problems with the article, but it clearly meets the GNG and so regardless of whether it really works or not, we should have an article about it. SmartSE ( talk) 13:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. After reading multiple popular press reports, I want to go to Wikipedia to see objective analysis and references. Of course, there's a high probability that it is a hoax, but I trust Wikipedia to have a great article for and against. I was especially interested in whatever's known about the science which is not well covered in popular media. I don't know where the article belongs, but Wikipedia does provide a needed service as a central objective source of information. FlintOBrien —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC). reply
Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.88.234 ( talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - that way, when the truth about all this is revealed, and it becomes clear that an article on a world-changing event was censored away by pathological skeptic fiat, the blatant editorial bias of Wikipedia and their complete lack of historical perspective will be revealed in all their tawdry shame. Antimatter33 ( talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Can we all just calm down a little, stop accusing each other of ignorance/bias/delusion/closed-mindedness and stick to the sources? It's just an article. 109a152a8a146 ( talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
(strong) Delete This is the definition of free energy, which is always a scam. The proposed method would rewrite more physics than the CERN FTL discovery, and this is not being handled in any way, shape or form like that is. It's a classic "secretive black box that does X" and this article is probably mostly marketing for it put up by individuals involved in said scam. Merge this to Cold Fusion, because that's exactly what the claim is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.157 ( talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/2/ -- perhaps someone could add that? Thousands and thousands of people have read about Rossi and the E-cat. It needs to be available via Wikipedia. Maryyugo ( talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Duh!
Time Cube gets an article, but not the
Energy Catalyzer? "If hydrogen atoms routinely diffused into nickel to create copper, every stainless frying pan would have disintegrated long ago."
Red herring much? If I had a nickel's-worth for every argument that was this flawed, I would have all the money in the world.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
reply
Strong Keep. Alanf777 ( talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep The attempt to delete smacks too much of the attempt at the defacto censorship that the cold fusion/LENR field has suffered for the past twenty-two years. This is one device that stands out among all the rest for its substantial amount of net heat out and its high COP (coefficient of performance). The claims by Rossi are that it produces heat but none of the expected emissions that hot fusion would be expected to produce and it appears to work that way. He is not claiming it works by chemical means and suggests some other not fully explained pathway causes the transmutation of elements and heat output. The fact that he does not deliver a complete, tested and pier reviewed and vetted paper that completely explains its operation does not negate the fact that it does produce substantial amounts of heat reliably makes the e-cat noteworthy of everybody and even a few articles in the popular media. In the past, it was not unusual for a new invention to be brought forth and sold on the market before the theories of physics caught up enough to fully explain the device’s operation. It is unusual today for that to happen but keep in mind that the last page of physics has not been written (and never will) and the next page, I suspect, will be about LENR. For what it is worth, I am a mechanical engineer, I know how to perform an energy balance on such a system, I have seen the data posted by Ny-Tecknic and find it produces substantial heat. Although the experiment could have been slightly improved there is no change that could have been made that would have negated the amount of heat produced and so changed the result and my conclusion that it works. It works and not by way of any chemical means.
The repeated labeling this as a “scam” or declaring that it is based on “pathological” science is not sufficient to justify it’s deletion. Surely there have been many scams in the past and will be in the future but for me this case does not pass the duck test. All the people involved seem to be behaving totally unlike scammers and the deluded can’t stand the light of day for too long. Zedshort ( talk) 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Although mainstream peer-reviewed publications are hard to find, no surprise after the Fleischmann-Pons demise, the movie put on Youtube by Dr. Brian Josephson in which he discusses with his coleague Judith Driscoll the interest of this invention is well worth watching. They are both professors of physics, and materials science, respectively at Cambridge University. In fact Brian Josephson won the Nobel Prize for phyiscs in 1973, so if that doesn't account for scientific stature i don't know what you would be looking for. Brian Josephson video 217.149.200.230 ( talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No offence but I have been following this issue since February and read the article and Talk on it over time. It seems to me that AndyTheGrump and Wtshymanski have been pushing this deletion line for some time when clearly the better thing is to wait for a time. They keep repeating that it is simply a scam and impossible and should be deleted. They seem keen to act straight away, what is the sense of urgency? Unless something happens, isn't it just going to sit largely as it is? Please note I do not think it is appropriate to say it is a fake or not. That is not up to us. I understand both points of view and am waiting for a while longer for events (this situation is highly unusual in my opinion, even for a scam, even for an experimental breakthrough). However, reputable scientists have been involved in this project and it has been widely reported. It has been discussed in scientific circles, according to my scientist/executive friend in automation and robotics. In addition, it has clearly and patently been widely reported in journals as an event. The site does not sponsor Rossi. Whatever its formal rules, Wikipedia functions as a non-commercial information base for the public including on public events. I think those who are in favour of deletion should rather argue for shortening the article. I don't understand why persons are referring to such an editing process as impossible or extremely difficult. I have done professional editing for 12 years in total and can't see any problem. Deleted details can be found by interested viewers on the blog sites if they are interested. If new information supports Rossi's claims the article can be re-expanded. That's the beauty of the Internet, it's flexible. Star A Star ( talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star A Star ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Star A Star ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep (Strong) It really does not matter whether this Energy Catalyzer or Low Energy Nuclear Fusion are true or a hoax/wishful thinking. The terms E-CAT and LENR are all over the Internet, and therefore people like me need a place to look them up. They seem to be a fixture of the modern world, and that alone makes this page needed. -- Wikipedia has articles about other "untrue" things like Alchemy, and about other trademarked things like the iPod, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.37.71 ( talk) 07:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Rossi is using the web on unfair terms to propagandized his alleged invention but he refuses till now to submit it to any form of serious, indipendent and scientifically correct test . Moreover, so far he has not fulfilled any of his numerous announcements. If the invention of a new form of energy is a fake, deleting articles about the so called Energy Catalyzer it will contribute to avoid potential scams. To the contrary, if the invention is real and works, deletion will stimulate Rossi to provide suitable proofs for is extraordinary claims. Chiostri ( talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (moved from the talk page by SmartSE ( talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC) ) reply
Delete. Even LENR researchers keep saying that Rossi continues to avoid simple changes in the testing procedures that could easily validate his claim. Yet Rossi refuses time after time. Still after all this time Rossi refuses to allow notable academic scientists who specialize in Nuclear physics & energy measurements to sign a NDA and have it verified. Rossi won't even give out the name of this so-called American company that's going to buy the eCat. In my firm opinion, the eCat is all a big fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.65.26 ( talk) 14:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Brian Josephson, a nobel laureate endorses this article. Where does the nominator stand in front of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.47 ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. While the science behind this article may be legitimately questioned, the article itself should be allowed to remain with the caveats that the test has not been duplicated by peer review. Until this occurs, the article should be categorized as an "unverified" test. Richardbamberg ( talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)— Richardbamberg ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment. Wtshymanski has asserted that the Energy Catalyzer is a "scam" and that it "should not have an independent article". Wtshymanski has recommended that the article about the E-Cat be deleted.
Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-Cat, asserts that the E-Cat produces more energy than it consumes. However, he has declined to give complete details about his invention in order to protect his intellectual property.
Dr. George Miley has publicly stated that he and his associates have built a “generalized heat source” that "can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts"( http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/mr-rossi-goes-to-market-dr-miley-and-others-hope-to-follow/). Dr. Miley asserts that this generalized heat source generates heat by low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Dr. Miley is a well-respected scientist and, based on his report, I am willing to give Andrea Rossi the benefit of the doubt — for the next six months. During that time, he will probably sell one or more additional 1 megawatt E-Cats and, as his patent applications are approved, he will be able to disclose more details about his invention. At that point, scientists will be able to build or buy E-Cats and verify Rossi's claims.
I recommend that this AfD be closed now. AnnaBennett ( talk) 11:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Grouping sources here, some comments:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep Removing this article would not be an error: it will be a fault. A lot of people are ennoyed because they cannot reproduce this device. ( Me the first ! ) That is a fact that the patent is not sufficient to make one: some it's features are protected by the secret: try once to build a B-2 bomber or an atomic bomb with the public patents and press pictures: it will be at least so difficult ! But, working as described or not, this device exist: it's a fact ! A lot of people are speaking about it, it's possible to order one. Perhaps most of people doesn't like Mr Rossi's communication strategy: that's their right, that his choice ! First, you cannot delete this article exactly as you cannot delete the articles: perpetual movement, phantom, ectoplasm, spiritism, aso ! If you delete this article, perhaps you have also to delete the article on God or Satan ! You can only inform that the system is doubtful for specific reasons ! ( and precise these reasons ) Second: this device is perhaps the most annoyng device of History for both petrol and nuclear industry. For that reason: the article must stay. And perhaps,in a few months, if somebody proves seriously that this device doesn't work , precise in the item that it was a fraud... ( Fraud, but existing ! ) -- Bmrpire ( talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment This 'discussion' should never have been reopened. No new points are being brought forward, and it's going around in circles. One useful thing to come out of it is POVbrigand's long list of available sources, including major publications such as la Repubblica, Daily Mail, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The only challenged source seems to be some small paper called 'Church Falls News'. A lot of the articles present balanced views and are suitable sources for both sides of the argument that seems to be at the heart of this discussion (i.e. the eCat does/doesn't work). I really fail to understand the argument against it being notable. 109a152a8a146 ( talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 01:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
no indication of notability. Disputed prod. References show she has been published not that she is notable. noq ( talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
In my view, anyone who has five published books is notable. Also, I looked at your history. You seem to spend most of your time deleting other people's work, often over loud objections. How many books have you had published? Karen Anne ( talk) 16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Karen Anne ( talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Karen Anne ( talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Karen Anne ( talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. It appears that sources have been found establishing the topic's notability. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Only given reference does not mention him. No indication of WP:notability. noq ( talk) 16:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks, DCI talk 23:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete : In-spite of the above facts I do not think Matta needs an article on it-self. There are many such persons whose name may appear in History of India, that does not mean each one qualifies for notability. The article of Matta can be added to Chach of Alor rather. Jethwarp ( talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musical group lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix ( talk) 15:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to WrestleMania XXVIII. The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and I can't find a source - except for an event between thest two April 1st 2012 in Miami Dougweller ( talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by IP. Seems to be a non-notable theory of the author's own invention. None of the alleged references or external links seems to be relevant to establishing its notability. Google Books and Scholar come up blank making it unverifiable and, almost certainly, original research. DanielRigal ( talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per criterion G3. At this moment, the article is nothing more than unsourced speculation which is not verifiable on the web. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced. No evidence that this is notable. (PROD contested with no reason given.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article, has been kicking around for a couple of years, orphaned, and appears to be a spam magnet. Discovered this while Huggling when it was one long advertisement. Now stubbified. A search of Google News shows one Reuters news story from 2007, concerning a venture not mentioned in this article and unclear if there are more than that, suggesting that the topic simply does not meet notability criteria. Created by an SPA; original version itself questioned notability, saying "real programs are out there, finding them is the hard part." Should be deleted or merged with private placement. ScottyBerg ( talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
random collection of statements based around a dictionary definition. No sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 12:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unsure if this article is really suitable for an encyclopedia. I could find no evidence that this headlamp was actually ever implemented by any car manufacturer. A web search shows that numerous inventors other than the one mentioned here make similar claims, so the article is also a bit misleading. Apart from that, the article doesn't add much beyond what is obvious from the title itself ('... is a headlamp... ...without glaring effects.'), and reads more like a dictionary entry. My main concern though is that it seems to be a purely theoretical invention with little appliction. If this technology is actually being used in a real car, I would support keeping the text, but merged with headlamp. Otherwise it is just another unused invention amongst many similar ones 109a152a8a146 ( talk) 12:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tone 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
List if redundant. We have List of modern conflicts in the Middle East and List of modern conflicts in North Africa - inappropriate to use political organization to stand in for geographic area. – Richard BB 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:Bio; the only apparent 3d party coverage consists of two brief squib entries lacking in meaningful depth or breadth. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tone 13:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG. Vast majority of GNews hits on his name are pieces regarding his wife's death. Article in its current form is basically just a resume. Mbinebri talk ← 03:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a non-notable self-published college magazine. The lack of sources means the content is unverifiable by readers. Lots of personal opinions and original research. Prod was contested, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
General notability guideline - no significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. The only source simply lists the subject's name on a list of competitors. Neutrality talk 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Faith Church, Hungary. I'm going with the vote from the only established user Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Hetek is only one Hungarian congregation periodical. Even in Hungary it is not famous. Kerdezo ( talk) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
There are some 8 references to it in WP articles. It is much more known than the other congregational weeklies. Keep. Nedudgi ( talk) 11:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think very few Hungarian weeklies should have enwiki article. And Hetek is definitelly not among them, because non of any religious should. But let's see other opinions. -- Kerdezo ( talk) 07:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I find somewhat strange that the opinion of Kerdezo expplicitly contradicts the Hungarian Wiki page on Hetek, which claims that it is a knowledgable, important publication, in the leage HVG, Heti Válasz, 168 Óra, Magyar Narancs, and Élet és Irodalom, all widely read serious weeklies. Why did he not change the Hungarian article? Nedudgi ( talk) 11:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Patience, My Dear, patience. I certainly will. Now I only have put a couple of source needed sings there. The problem is, if one delete every sentence which has no independent source, there remains nothing. And I am not such a fun for deletion. I can pateintly wait some weeks. However as you suggest, I will certainly delete everything which would not have source. Kerdezo ( talk) 14:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Please, read my note about the only opponent. Euty ( talk) 11:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks Euty. It is important to know that Nedudgi is a Hungarian sock puppet soldier. Kerdezo ( talk) 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 07:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Author of non-notable website and books. All citations in the article are from her website, AskApril.com. Many of the claims in the article, such as "catalyst" behind Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, The Miss Universe pageant and the Hawaiian Governors Gala are actually attributed to Alfred Masini, as noted in independent sources. HNN New York Times Scanlan ( talk) 11:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. m.o.p 05:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability per WP:AUTHOR dubious. Main author User:طلال بن زيد is a single-purpose account (claims to be an admin, but isn't as far as I can see), possibly in a conflict of interest. bender235 ( talk) 09:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
( Arab cinema database) http://www.elcinema.com/person/pr1978206
And his name is in International database of films (Internet Movie Database) (IMDb)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4730962/
My opinion is that the article does not delete طلال بن زيد ( talk) 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by طلال بن زيد ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Listcruft that's managed to stick around since the earlier days of Wikipedia where such lists were commonplace and trivia was rampant. It has been mocked as one of "The Least Essential Wikipedia Pages" and casts a bad light on the project. Strong issues with notability, no references whatsoever, and virtually impossible to determine its completeness. Remurmur ( talk) 19:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete per jfgslo. The topic as a whole is not notable. There are no sources that discuss the topic, resulting in a mess of WP:OR. Karanacs ( talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETED by Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non English article in English wiki. Pearll's Sun TALK 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This orphaned article has been tagged as unsourced since March 2010 and it fails WP:GNG. I can find no reliable references to this measurement and the term doesn't appear to be employed in astronomy. I can locate a Huang Guoyou, but no association between him and this term. The article was de-PROD'd back in March 2010 with the claim that the unit is covered by a book. I checked that book but could not find a match on a search. There is a book reference to a "cosmoscopic domain" on the talk page, but not to a "cosmoscopic scale". There's no apparent reason to merge. Hence I'm proposing deletion. Regards, RJH ( talk) 06:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tone 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements and is borderline advertising. Deletion proposal tag was removed by anonymous user and replaced by bot which was again removed by anonymous user. Nominating for deletion. Tejanse ( talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason stated above; another name for the same business:
The result was delete. Tone 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO... doesn't fit CSD criteria. Shadowjams ( talk) 04:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to PASSOP. m.o.p 05:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Hardly meets WP:ANYBIO. Created by User:Refugeeadvocacy, very likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 ( talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No sources have been provided so the argument that this is unsourced has not been refuted. Can be restored once sources appear Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 ( talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Gene93k ( talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The way the article is written you would have thought there would be coverage somewhere, but I, too, can find absolutely nothing. Black Kite (t) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This disabled musician is only referenced by his Myspace page. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Generally non-notable organization with flash-in-the-pan notoriety in the popular press as filler several years ago. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was already redirected. Out-of-process redirections really should be undone to let AfDs play out, but since redirect was the likely end point here anyway... The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable primary school. Primary schools Are not considered inherently notable pet OUTCOMES. It has received passing mention in relationship to one event, but that isn't even at the level suggested in ONEVENT. I asked twice of the article's creator if he could explain the reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia as it wasn't obvious to me but he declined comment. Bongo matic 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Bongo matic 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted as CSD G3 by SchuminWeb. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:MADEUP thing that was allegedly created last week → Σ τ c. 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
It's obviously vandalism or hoax, not worth an AFD. Tagged. Secret account 01:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not mean meet the criteria of
WP:BIO. No Google hits, no reliable sources. The author is
related to the subject of this article and
also featured himself in the other Vlassopoulos article please note: Link not working due to deletion of linked article, therefore has a
WP:COI.
Dr.K.
λogos
πraxis
21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. m.o.p 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously-deleted article makes no claim of notability. Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable sources (book sources are directory information only, news sources don't seem to provide any coverage of the institution). Bongo matic 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I believe the article topic is not on its own a meaningful subject, as LGBT rights in Commonwealth countries are country-specific, it being an affiliated group of nations rather than a geographical or administrative grouping. It's consigned to be an original synthesis at worst or a list of information covered in the individual nations' articles at best; in neither case is there likely to be RS specifically for the article topic itself. In short, I'm AfDing this because it can only be a non-notable and synthesis-prone regrouping of notable information. Tristessa (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This aticle has been in an unsourced state, containing original research for years. The subject is not to be found in any search of scholarly material.
Most of the sources listed within the article are synthesized and the 2 that purported to be about the topic directly are nolonger available
[92]
[93].
Page should be deleted as
original research by
synthesis, and becuase the topic itself seems to fail the basic requirements of both
WP:GNG (from the point of view of not having significant coverage directly about it) and
WP:NRVE--
Cailil
talk
00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
reply
Another growing field of feminism in the 21st century is fat-positive feminism.
A New Fat-Positive Feminism
There is an ever-growing movement variously referred to as "size acceptance," "fat acceptance," "fat positive," ... While both women and men are involved, many organizations have a decidedly feminist take ...
NAAFA has had a feminist caucus since 1983; a lesbian group, since 1990. Fat-positive sexuality has always been part of fat lesbians' agenda.
The result was redirect to List of General Hospital characters. Since there are no comments suggesting this couple is notable, I have merely redirected, since most of the information is already in the target article. Black Kite (t) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is a cut and paste from: http://soapcentral.com/gh/whoswho/damian.php?&printonly=yes Wlmg ( talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. If this nomination was meant as a serious challenge to the subject's notability and/or to the notability standard at WP:POLITICIAN, the nominator is free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review and provide further explanation there. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relatively obscure and unknown public figure from the 70s and 80s. Does not meet notability guidelines. Hhhter ( talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply