I went with a non-snarky fairly neutral "wait and see"
response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media
attention, there is sufficient
Non-WP:RS
evidence that things are happening behind the scenes (with a resolution
on a relatively short timescale -- say 3-6 months) -- that we're still in
a "wait and see" status. There is no particular reason to
delete it
now.Alanf777
(talk)
18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering now whether to jump back into the editing fray.
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for dele... Alan Fletcher
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for dele... Jouni Valkonen
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for ... Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article... Jouni Valkonen
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat art... Alain Sepeda
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat art... Jouni Valkonen
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat art... Alain Sepeda
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat art... Alan J Fletcher
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for ... Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article... Alan J Fletcher
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat art... Alan J Fletcher
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for dele... Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion James Bowery
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion Alain Sepeda
- Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion Jeff Berkowitz