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 keep. WP:FRINGE does not neccessarily exclude a topic from inclusion into Wikipedia. However, I do not think fringe applies in the way we'd all like it to. Despite being a fringe science, Cold Fusion actually serves a prominent place in popular culture, science fiction, and fringe science alike. A conference on the subject would not neccessarily fall to the levels of fringe, then, as would a conference about Hollow Earth. From a pure WP:GNG standpoint, this AFD has resulted in a huge improvement to the article which makes me question at least some of the delete !votes which prempted these improvements. In fact, most of the !votes came before these improvements. Taking into the fact that the new references were highly discussed on this AFD before being introduced to the article, though, means that I cannot discount those votes on their timing alone. Several folks have said that WP:GNG is not met if the sources are not about the conference. I quote GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The only other argument to delete, then, is that the coverage is not significant enough to write a decent article but the current version of the article defeats that argument as well. Thusly, I see a discussion that has stronger arguments towards keep. If it were a !vote count, this may be a no consensus. But as an examination of the argument, we have a keep result. v/r - TP 02:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science[edit]

AfDs for this article:
International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe topic with insufficient coverage in mainstream sources to establish notability. [N.B. This article appears to have been subject to an earlier AfD[1] which decided to delete it.] Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I could not find any. The three passing press mentions in the article fall well short of establishing notability. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. Based on Edcolins suggestion, I looked through Google Scholar to find an additional reference that spoke more directly to the significance of the conference itself (at least in the field of science studies). I've added the material to the article.--Nowa (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah yes, I see searching JSTOR using the alternative conference title returns 4 hits, including the article you mention. I have modified the material you added to the article as it misrepresented the source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How did I misrepresent the source? I thought I had captured the author's points accurately.--Nowa (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then there is possibly a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Focussing on the word "crackpot", your edit included the words "a significant number of attendees were scientists who could not be easily dismissed as crackpots" while the source itself (in the only use of the word "crackpot" in its own voice) stated "we are left with the impression that, as far as normal science is concerned, CF is of interest to crackpots, pseudo-scientists, frauds and a few sociologists of science" – your edit is thus a blatant misrepresentation. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So are you saying that in order to evaluate my edit, you did a word search on the paper to see how it used the word “crackpot”? And when you found out how the author used it, you concluded that I misrepresented what the author was saying? --Nowa (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classic WP:GOOGLEHITS argument, IRWolfie- (talk)
WP:GOOGLEHITS also says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." Anyway, let me look into these 200 + 50 + 1000 + 9000 relevant hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. I would be rather surprised that there are not at least some reliable sources establishing notability amongst these hits... --Edcolins (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, the three references (New York Times 1992, Simon 1999, Goodstein 2010) in the "Reception" section appear quite good already to justify a standalone article. --Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just added a fourth one from the Wired magazine, 1998. Not just a passing reference. A mainstream journalist spent four days at the conference and reported thereon in the mainstream media. Ten paragraphs from "In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, (...)" to "(...) As far as I could tell, I was the only mainstream journalist who bothered to attend. To the outside world, it didn't exist." --Edcolins (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added yet another reference (on the third conference in Nagoya, Japan): Sutel, Seth (October 26, 1992). "At International Conference, Debate Continues Over Cold Fusion Claims". Associated Press. The story was picked up by other newspapers.[6].--Edcolins (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:GNG requires that there are sources which "address the subject directly in detail". The AP source is neither detailed nor direct on the topic of the conference itself; the Wired source is more promising. However, even taken together with the other reasonable sources my view is that on balance there is not enough to pass the notability threshold. There is certainly enough to merit inclusion in the main cold fusion article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think the AP source addresses the subject directly in detail. The article was published right after the conference, its title is to the point, and it discusses in detail the debates which took place at the conference. The number of coffee breaks, whether coffee or tea or both were available during the breaks, etc. are obviously not discussed in the article, but I suppose that's not what we should understand by the conference itself.
In a further source (Kowalski, 2004), in my opinion a reliable source, a historian of science wrote: "(...) the conference proceedings would be a fine addition to the collections of our Niels Bohr Library." At least for the history of science, the conference is notable. In my opinion, this justifies a standalone article. --Edcolins (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also my renaming proposal on the talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update -- Official report on European Parliament presentation is at http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source (links to individual slides). Note that McKubre(SRI)'s work is supported by DARPA and DRTA. Alanf777 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just a meeting of the Italian ENEA agency with an Italian member of the European Parliament... see Talk:Cold_fusion#New_Sources. I can only suppose that their "increasing reproducability" results were rejected at serious scientific journals because there were full of methodology errors and similar, and they are forced to lobby directly to friendly politicians.... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? Could you point him out, please? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sMj4xRCysxA/Ua4Z2cWSxMI/AAAAAAAAJjE/A5vdAYzMJ6A/s1600/P1070365.jpg The room looks pretty full to me. (Gallery didn't work)
And you misrepresent what's in Cold Fusion / Talk -- "the presentation was introduced (and concluded by) Edit Herczog, MEP, Member ITRE Committee (from Hungary), and a presentation was made by Herbert Von Bose, European Commission, DG RTD, Director Industrial Technologies (eg)http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/swedish-presidency-event/von_bose.pdf (German, not Italian either). (AlanF777)" Alanf777 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And to support my contention that CF is frontier not fringe :
In January 2013 NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) awarded a one-year $150,000 "seedling" grant to Doug Wells (Langley Research Center) for "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft".[1][2] Alanf777 (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed the same thing about the primary sources in the raw Google searches. If you go to Google books and filter out “proceedings of”, you get about 2,000 secondary sources that reference the conference. Many discuss the conference itself, nature of the attendees, what was presented, and the implications of all three.--Nowa (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually you don't. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Could you be more specific?--Nowa (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't get "about 2,000 secondary sources that reference the conference." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but around Sept 2012 there were complaints about too much detail. That's why this sub-article was created. Do you now agree that the table of conferences can go in the article? Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the more recent secondary references deal with the conference as an interesting phenomena in and of itself. See for example:
First is actually about Cold fusion, using this conference to set the scene. The second is about the Fleischmann and Pons conference for the most part, the snippet I can't view, nor can you. Third is a snippet, not meeting GNG also. Nothing showing significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have good points regarding the second and third reference. I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the first reference. ”Significant coverage” per wp:gng means “that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.”
  • Regarding the first reference, the subject of the the article is addressed directly “On December 6-9, 1993, the Fourth International Conference took place in Hawaii...” The reference addresses the subject in detail, “At least 250 scientists took part.” No original research is needed to extract the content, “The founders of the field, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman, were in attendance...” There was more than a trivial mention, “Contrary to appearances, however, this was no normal scientific conference.” It did not have to be the main topic of the source material, “Cold fusion had become a pariah field....” Hence the first reference supports general notability.
  • Regarding the second reference, I found access to the full article. Having read it, I now agree that it does little to support general notability. I offer instead this Wall Street Journal article which does meet all of the criteria for general notability. Begley, Sharon “Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering From Scientific Neglect”, Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2005
  • Regarding the third reference, you make a good point about snippet views. I have contacted the University of Rochester to get a copies of the relevant pages. Hopefully I will receive them prior to the end of this deletion discussion.
In the meantime, the article already has references from Times of India, Social Studies of Science, New York Times, and Wired (recently added by Edcollins ) which all meet the Wikipedia standards for supporting general notability.
If we are still in disagreement regarding the general notability of the subject, please let me know.--Nowa (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Nowa. Now, there is yet a further reference from The Associated Press, 1992. In the light of these recent additions, I would be good to have some more feedback from those who initially "voted" to delete. The Wired reference is particularly good IMHO. See the paragraph in the "Reception" section. --Edcolins (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The best sources are old"? So what? --Edcolins (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The claimed rationale for this AfD was:
1. "Fringe topic..."
- No rule against that on Wikipedia.
2. "...with insufficient coverage in mainstream sources to establish notability."
- About 1,760 results on Google Books; sources as mainstream as can be expected for a specialist field of study
3. "...[N.B. This article appears to have been subject to an earlier AfD[8] which decided to delete it.]"
- No need to N.B. that if we're judging the article on its own merits. Silent Key (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the JSTOR result is more telling (4 hits, which boils down to 2 effectively since two pieces are the same, and one just lists the conference in a general chronology). The question that matters is: is there a reasonable number of good independent secondary sources discussing the conference itself (rather than mentioning it in passing or using it as a "hook" for piece on cold fusion)? I maintained there were not in the nomination, and nobody has produced evidence to the contrary. Or am I wrong? If so, could somebody point to just three (say) solid gold sources which establish this topic's notability. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay because we don't generally have guidelines and policies about bad arguments to make. The reason Dominus can cite this essay is because it lists classic fallacious arguments used at deletion discussions. Trying to dismiss it because it's an essay will fall on deaf ears with any admin closing this discussion. Any seasoned AfD editor can easily spot these bad arguments, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alexbrn, those are all valid points about arguments to avoid in an AfD. Shall we focus on WP:GOODARG instead? It seems to me that the key issue we have been debating is WP:NOREFS. Would you agree? And given that multiple editors have found multiple references since the AfD has begun, it would be hard to demonstrate “...that none (i. e. references) can ever likely be found.” Would you also agree? If so, then the real issue is whether or not the multiple independent references found support general notability wp:gng. Those in favor of KEEP, including myself, have provided point by point analysis of the reference showing that they directly meet wp:gng. Those that are in favor of DELETE have merely responded with the arguments:
  • The references are old (which is not requirement of GNG)
  • There are lots of references which are not suitable (also not a criteria of GNG)
  • Some databases don't have many references (also not a criteria of GNG)
  • Some references are duplicative of other references (also not a criteria of GNG)
  • The subject of the article is not the main topic of the references (explicitly not a criteria of GNG)
All that being said, I've enjoyed the debate and learned a great deal about both the subject of the article and Wikipedia policies. Whatever the closing admin's decision is, I appreciate the discussion.--Nowa (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think your summary of positions is neutral or accurate - however the closing admin can decide for themselves so rather than get into the weeds let me just state (again) that I think the main issue here is notability. WP:GNG states we need multiple good sources, and also requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" (my emphasis). During the discussion some better sourcing has been discovered by Edcolins, but even so in my judgement we have just not got enough to cross the notability threshold; the material would be better as section in the main CF article (see WP:NOPAGE). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alexbrn, the main CF article is way too long already (134K). It seems that WP:PARENTSIZE plays in favour of a standalone article (besides WP:GNG on which we obviously still disagree...), all the more since you agree that the material contained in the article does belong on Wikipedia. --Edcolins (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two more references added (Deseret News 1990, LA Times 1990). --Edcolins (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alex, see the further reference added in the "External links" section, i.e. the media coverage of the first conference by local Salt Lake City news stations in 1990. It is an amazingly detailed coverage directly addressing the first conference, incl. the critics, the news conferences, the number of reporters, the exclusion of some reporters from a news conference, the "battles" between scientists during the conference, etc. --Edcolins (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you've linked a lot of video and the conference is mentioned in a small proportion of it, so it is not WP:INDEPTH but rather in passing (generally in the context of the wider fusion story which concentrates on the science claims and the main players). Do we have news coverage from other years, or is there a lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The six videos evidently provide an in-depth coverage of the first conference itself, and also explain the media frenzy around the conference back 23 years ago. To me, the WP:INDEPTH threshold is clearly met. Except for the last two minutes of the sixth video (which discusses a dispute following the conference), the remaining 48 minutes or so exclusively relate to the conference, in detail. As to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, footnote 105 of the main CF article reads "Goodstein 1994, the first three conferences are commented in detail in Huizenga 1993, pp. 237–247, 274–285, specially 240, 275–277" (my emphasis). I have unfortunately no access to Huizenga 1993, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. --Edcolins (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't think we quite agree on what "in depth" is, but given the amount (if not weight) of sourcing I am modifying my position to being able to live with this article being a standalone one (although my preference would be for it to be deleted and its content merged into CF). And thanks, BTW, for your excellent work finding sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, it was quite interesting searching for sources on this topic. I have to say I very much appreciate the civility of the whole debate here. Thanks! So, you can live with a standalone article on the topic. Do you mean that you are considering withdrawing the nomination? --Edcolins (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggested in the article that one way of doing this is to create a Wikipedia:Subpages -- but I see that is now discouraged : Wikipedia:Do not use subpages. Since this article has more detail than is appropriate for the main article, and yet is of interest to those wishing to investigate the history and background of CF, I see no reason at all to delete it. (See my vote above) Alanf777 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alexbrn, it makes no difference to me whether you are able to codify the reasons I've provided; those tags do not decrease their value, they simply show that this place has become too legalistic. I urge any admin to look at the heart of the matter -- this article is relevant to someone looking into cold fusion, and it contains manifestly verifiable information. Full stop. modify 03:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not merely legalistic: making an argument in an AfD which manages to combine an imputation of the nominator's motive with a load of notoriously poor non-arguments is probably best avoided. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It wasn't an imputation of your motive -- it was an attempt to help you to understand how you will be perceived by any third parties to this AfD. You can make use of this observation or you can set it aside. As for types of argument to avoid, I think each reader is free to judge them on their own merits; that an argument has been codified somewhere will sway some and not others. In this regard I hope people will remember WP:IGNORE, especially in connection with controversial subjects around which committed activists are known to collect. A simple catalog of rules will do little to sort out questions in such situations. modify 21:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the multiple references discussing the topic (most of them added after "IRWolfie and others above" "voted")? See in the article: references 2. (Deseret News 1990), 4. (Simon 1999), 8. (Los Angeles Times 1990), 10. (New York Times 1992), 11. (Associated Press 1992), 12. (Wired 1998), 13. (Goodstein 2010), Huizenga 1993 (See "Further reading", explaining that the first three conferences are commented in detail in this book, pp. 237–247, 274–285, specially 240, 275–277) and the extensive coverage of the first conference by local Salt Lake City, Utah news stations in 1990 (about 50 minutes of TV coverage, see "External links")? The conferences are clearly notable to me. --Edcolins (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
  1. ^ NASA. "2013 NARI Awards". NASA. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
  2. ^ http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/Wells
More