Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.It has been suggested that relevant content is merged into the main Cold fusion article; a review of this timeline, however, shows that the first two sections contain mostly unsourced materials which are of no verified significance in the historic timeline of cold fusion, effectively making the page border on POV-fork. The third section has some noteworthy information regarding the international conferences in respect of the subject; some consider them notable events that merit keeping a record of, I agree; this info would have worth merging into the main article if it did not already exist somewhere else. Anyway, given that International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a page that is linked from Cold fusion and already covers said information, can be found taking a life on its own (for some time now), I conclude that this timeline has no other useful [1] materials that can be merged; ergo, it can safely be deleted. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ by "useful" I mean "verified" and "significant"

[edit] Timeline of cold fusion

Timeline of cold fusion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unnecessary fork of cold fusion. The key events are already in that article, and much of this is padding (e.g. an entry for every year's "international conference" of CF advocates). Guy (Help!) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • PLEASE NOTE. This page has been relisted in an effort to get a better consensus. I made an honest error in closing this page with the wrong consensus decision. The above discussion did not match my initial closing decision of "delete".(See history). Please accept my apology and continue on with the debate that I am now abstaining from. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 :) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cold fusion. JJL (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest Delete per nom, useless POV fork of the most ridiculous kind. Absolutely silly. Really, listing all those "conferences" -- it's not just padding, it's not just POV pushing (although it is all that, of course), it's simply absolute absurdity. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I still advocate deletion. As far as I can tell, anything of any value is already in cold fusion. There is nothing more to merge, without reintroducing cruft and POV pushing into that article. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. This so-called "timeline" of non-notable, fringe (or if you prefer "extremely non-mainstream") events is not something we want to see in the main article. - Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge as a section, retaining the content. Whatever one may think of the likelihood of this science, the subject is highly notable and the conferences remain important. This serves asa useful historical summary. Its moreappropriate than trying to do an article on the conference series.DGG (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are thousands (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of conference series organized all over the world in all kinds of sciences and disciplines. We don't have articles on every single one of them. Why should we have one in this extremely non-mainstream subject? This is POV pushing. We are being gamed. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the subject is notable. Which is why nobody's nominating the subject for deletion. This timeline, however, exists primarily to present as much fringe material as possible in a rebuttal-free context. As far as the outside world is concerned, the real timeline of CF begins with Pons and Fleischhmann and ends... well, with Pons and Fleischmann looking very silly, some weeks later. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Possibly the article exists in an attempt to be rebuttal-free, but entries can be challenged for lack of notability. Perhaps you could swing consensus here or with some future nomination by making the case that there are no entries here that would be worth mention in any Wikipedia article, or at least that there are so few such entries, that they do not merit a separate article. And, while the article abides, its effect might be quite the opposite of what you fear, were some interested editors to ensure that the article only listed conferences of note. —SlamDiego←T 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Even ordinary conferences are not significant events. It is my understanding that the more recent cold fusion conferences are by invitation only, and that only proponents of cold fusion are invited. Listing such conferences as "significant events" makes this article a POV fork. There is no need to formally merge; the number of actually significant events in this timeline that are not already in the cold fusion article is small (in the range of 0 to 3) and they could easily be edited in if there were a consensus to do so. Cardamon (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork. The only content here that's not in the main cold fusion article appears to be crankery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.