Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizuno experiment

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuno experiment

Mizuno, while being famous in cold fusion circles for three papers that made it into obscure mainstream publications, has not done anything of note to warrant the inclusion of this particular experiment at Wikipedia. The papers he published in the mainstream only obliquely reference the contents of this article and ultimately there has been no mainstream attention paid to this experiment, nor has there been any popular press coverage, or critical/skeptical review. As such, the only sources we have to write the article do not rise to the standards needed to establish reliability and verifiability. Rather, they are all from fringe publications and essentially this article serves as a soapbox for cold fusion advocacy in violation of the fringe theory guidelines and undue weight policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a repeat of the polyneutron] discussion: the research presented is published in a peer-reviewed journal. There is nothing wrong with the Japanese journal of applied physics, so the source is reliable. I suggest that you focus on the type of pseudoscience NOT peer-review published. Popular press overage or inclusion in review articles is not a criterion. Your description of Mizuno is insulting. V8rik (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not decided on this one but V8rick your argument is deeply flawed. Being published in a peer reviewed journal does not make anything notable per se. There are hundreds of thousands of topics published in peer reviewed journals every year and most do not deserve a wikipedia article of their own. Popular press coverage is very much an important (but not exclusive) criterion of notability. I think you need to review the notability guidelines. You have some serious misconceptions about it. Regarding verifiability a single peer reviewed article on a controversial topic is not sufficient. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Did you know that there is a single main stream peer reviewed article on intelligent design.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks Nick Y. for your comment, no there is nothing wrong with my understanding of notability so there is no need to start insults. Notability applies to the article as a whole but merging with for instance the cold fusion article has never been considered, it went straight to a deletion proposal. A simple merge would solve the issue V8rik (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That a journal, any journal, cared to publish the work is irrelevent. Mizuno still wrote it, so it's a primary source, and doesn't establish notability in the slightest. Press coverage is the easiest way to demonstrate notability, which this does not evidence. The way to do it with journals is to show that other researchers cared enough to repeat or build on his work and publish it themselves in respected journals. And I don't think there's much point stuffing a non-notable experiment into the cold fusion article. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the last thing Wikipedia needs is more WP:FRINGEy cold fusion theories. sh ¤y 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is violating the laws of thermodynamics and yet it's purporting to be science, so it gives an entirely misleading account of the facts of the matter. When your kettle's powered by cold fusion it'll deserve a place, not till then. Nick mallory (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Web of Science, the key paper has been cited 3 times only, 2 of them by Mizuno himself. As for the importance of the effect, the article itself says nobody has replicated it. DGG (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[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.