On the 30th October 2012, the Wikipedia page describing Andrea Rossi’s eCat technology was marked for deletion pending a discussion. The end result of that particular discussion was that it was to be saved.
“The result was keep. A really lengthy 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.”
Printed below are just some of the seemingly endless arguments for and against…
Strong Keep. “There is very strong evidence that a 1MW system of this has been sold to a customer – see Fox news . [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“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 by nominator. “It claims to transmute elements by chemical processes. Every such claim is incorrect, either due to ignorance or fraud. ( Please cite a counterexample.) This fellow claims to have scientists working with him, so he’s not ignorant.” –Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Keep. “Afd not justified. There is no pseudoscience involved AND media coverage is quite respectable.“–NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment by nominator “The article says hydrogen atoms mutate nickel into copper by what appears to be chemical means. If someone posted an article about spinning flax into gold, we’d shoot it down unless it was clearly labelled fairy tales. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this story is developing along the same line as every free-energy scammer of the last 1000 years. As another example of overheated claims that would overturn what we know of science, it’s not particularly notable.” –Wtshymanski (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)“If the article says ‘chemical means’ that is an error that should be corrected. The energy created by chemical processes is insufficient by some orders of magnitude.”–Brian Josephson (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Wikipedia has a long history of subverting the truth by omission and is well-known for the pro-establishment bias of it’s page editors. Many of it’s articles that deal with free / alternative energy / cold fusion and as they call them “fringe topics” would to be honest, be better off being deleted anyway as they serve no other purpose than to misinform an already confused and sceptical public. It’s quoted sources and references for many of these subjects are primarily mainstream news outlets such as Forbes / The Economist, etcetera, who only write about their own prejudices anyway. Can’t we just mark Wikipedia.com for deletion?
« Cold Fusion: Are We There Yet? Swiss eCat Conference: Convincing or Just Plain Cuckoo? »
free energy devices 