Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 19 June 2007 (→‎[[HHO gas]]: Knock it off, Nomen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 11 Deletion review archives: 2007 June June 13 >

12 June 2007

Oz_Enterprise (closed)

Lolcode (closed)

HHO gas

HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD mentioned above has now run its course. It was closed as "delete", and I fail to see how this can possibly reflect community consensus. Related discussion:

If I counted correctly, 13-15 people in the AfD recommended to delete, 18-20 to keep (plus minus a few leaning/conditional/merge on each side). Yes, as Kurykh contends, AfD is not a vote. But even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments about the reliability of the sources — this AfD does not reflect a consensus for deletion, not even a rough one, and the policy is clear enough that this defaults to a "keep".

WP:AN: Kurykh's rationale for deletion and for disregarding opinions at the AfD—many of which explicitly state that the articles do not violate WP:RS—is that the articles violate WP:RS. I find this unilateral decision not acceptable and in violation of proper deletion procedure. Femto 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion of both HHO gas and related Brown's gas, and a speedy close of this DRV. Please note the AfD involved HHO gas and Brown's gas. Not sure if nominator intended to discuss both articles. Just to be sure, this is the neverending story of editors having a total disregard for normal procedure and as such refusing to abide by policy: i.e. AfD and DRV. For details on why this is repeatedly deleted and there is no reason to recreate yet again see:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (2nd nomination)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis
One would think that after this many deletions, for what essentially is the same article, having yet another DRV looks more like WP:POINT and should be speedy closed. As to WP:RS, nominator is free to supply any reputable scientific source stating this is either about real science or it is a hoax. Since after all those AfD's it is still impossible to provide such a source the rationale to delete stands, and coincidentally is every time the same: violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Nomen Nescio: Yes, you may assume the review extends to any pages that are deleted citing this AfD.
The previous AfDs are irrelevant to the current issue at hand. That you list them, intermingling Brown's gas with HHO gas yet again, only shows your need to distract from the fact that you have no point about the actual subject of this review.
It was not the purpose of the AfD to supply sources for the article, but to determine whether the existing sources are adequate enough. Individual opinions notwithstanding, I maintain, the consensus of this deletion debate, and the outcome of this AfD per Wikipedia's deletion policy, is that there is no justification for deletion. Femto 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete both as redirects to Oxyhydrogen - and mention both historical Brown's gas and the HHO pseudoscience or hoax stuff there. We both need to cover that these are real phenomena and not give credibility to the kooks that the sources do not support. This was proposed in AFDs as a middle ground and rejected in favor of extremes, which don't serve the encyclopedia well. If I can google either term and get hundreds of hits, we should list these somehow, even if they are listings of a minor industrial use and a pseudoscience / hoax phenomena. Georgewilliamherbert 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This is tenable, but I would like to see what the Oxyhydrogen article would be changed to in advance, including what sourcing there is for any statements made there. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for God's sake. How often do we have to go round this loop? Endorse, come back when there is something in a reputable pee-reviewed paper. This is just like Aetherometry; while it would be great to be the Internet's leading debunker of scams, it almost always violates our policies. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you disbelieve that there are a small number of Brown's gas welders out there? Tsk tsk. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I was really hoping that the last AfD would produce some productive results - ie. some kind of compromise that would make for a satisfactory conclusion to this back-and-forth. Unfortunately at this time the sourcing to create a valid article (about the hoax) still doesn't quite exist. I did like the suggestion to redirect them to Oxyhydrogen and feel that it was a better middle-ground solution, particularly in the face of the lack of consensus generated. I don't feel there was sufficient consensus in the AfD to really close it as a delete but I'm not going to cry about that - I would like to see them redirected somewhere. Alas. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both - clear violation of Deletion policy
    1. I count 19 keep votes vs 15 delete votes. Do you count differently? It's pretty outlandish to claim that this constitutes a rough consensus for deletion, don't you think? AfD is not a headcount, but a deletion in spite of consensus to keep should only be done in special cases (copyright violations, meatpuppets, etc.)
    2. Even if the situation were reversed, and there was a slight majority for deletion, Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, and this would still not constitute a rough consensus for deletion. In the case of no consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, the default action is to keep:
      • "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." — Deletion policy
      • "The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept." — {{Afd no consensus}}
      • "When in doubt, don't delete." — Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
    3. Several of the delete votes were solely for HHO gas, not Brown's gas. The articles are quite different (and should never have been lumped into a single AfD).
    4. Radiant's mention of "thirteen" debates (where did he get that number?) and the repeated "recreation of deleted content" criticism is irrelevant. It is well-defined in policy that a re-created article is acceptable if it takes into account the problems with the deleted version. In addition, the previous deletion review explicitly stated that the articles could be recreated. The latest versions of the articles were very different from the previously deleted versions, written entirely from scratch with verifiable, reliable sources.
    5. If Kurykh personally believes that the articles did not have reliable sources or were not notable, he should have voted delete like the rest of us and left the closure for a neutral admin. Those claiming that the articles don't have reliable sources probably haven't actually read them, and are just making assumptions based on past deletions. See Talk:Brown's gas#References and Talk:HHO gas#References for a few. The articles certainly need work and more sources, but that's not a criteria for deletion.
    Do you really think that 19 editors (including seven administrators) are all incompetent to interpret our policies, and can legitimately be overruled by one admin's personal opinion?
    The people who promote these gases claim that they are similar to oxyhydrogen, but contain other anomalous compounds and properties, which is why these unique claims are separated from the oxyhydrogen article. If you want to discuss merging or renaming, go right ahead, but the articles are kept by default, and that discussion takes place on the articles' talk pages, not on AfD. This unilateral deletion and attempts to prevent deletion review are completely unacceptable. — Omegatron 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would love to know why you are so adamant about these topics needing coverage, to the point that you are willing to grasp at any straw to assert notability. As I see it, you did a wonderful job of pushing a falacious theory of notability. IMO Kurykh did a fine job of seeing that theory for what it was, as so disregarded the keep votes based on it and quite properly deleted the article. Even now, you are arguing that by votes there was no consensus even as you quote that "These processes are not decided through a head count"! IMO, it is time for you to stop this strange campaign to give these scams coverage and notice that they do not deserve. --EMS | Talk 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are again insinuating that Omegatron is somehow trying to promote these things. Can't you see? It can't possibly hurt us to have articles debuking these well-documented fraudulent claims. At least Brown's gas is notable, so much so that some people think it is the correct name for oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bias itself is obvious but I will apologize to Omegatron for not assuming good faith before in terms of my speculation on its source. I agree that notable hoaxes deserve articles. As for "debunking" them I refer you to WP:NPOV, which hopefully does not get in the way of that. Beyond that, oxyhydrogen is obviously notable, and if Brown's gas is really that common of a term then there should be no problem establishing its notability based on reliable sources in my mind. So far, that has no been done. OTOH, what I have seen would justify a section at oxyhydrogen and a redirect from Brown's gas to that article. --EMS | Talk 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained my rationale a bazillion times. Go read it on the AfD or the articles' talk pages. Please stick to discussion of the actual deletion process. — Omegatron 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my decision. May I refer everyone to my post here and ask that Omegatron reread all of our policies and get accustomed to Wikipedia norms before making any further erroneous comments. —Kurykh 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As the last DRV said, we ought to have this information in Wikipedia somewhere. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Although Omegatron and you try and articulate that numerous AfD's should be ignored you also fail to undertand the principal argument in this case: the articles were deleted for violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. So, what exactly does that mean?
  1. The articles said X gas exists.
  2. The articles said X gas has special properties.
  3. The articles said X gas is a hoax.
None of these statements can be sourced to scientific articles. Not even an adequate and non-promotional journalistic valid news report exists. What we are left with are three statements for which no sources can be found. This is considered to be a -wait a minute, it is amazing! oops, it can't be, yes,- a violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Exactly the reason they were deleted. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep this garbage deleted. extraordinary new scientific claims must be peer reviewed before we accept them, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. -N 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closing admin seems to have ignored the discussion and instead closed based on his personal take on the article. That oversteps admin discretion for what should have been a no consensus close. --JJay 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More argumentum ad populum arguments. —Kurykh 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no consensus for closing as delete. The sources were widely discussed during the debate, yet a majority wanted the article kept. It is not your role to state that the sources are inadequate. Instead, you ignored the discussion and made an innapropriate block threat. When I pointed to the 2006 article from the International journal of hydrogen energy[4], the response I received was: "I'd love to know how this stuff gets past a peer review, but for the less prominant journals the publication of alternate views may be a way of filling page space".[5] That is an inadequate response. The sources + media attention were considered during this debate and there was no consensus to delete. --JJay 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • JJay -
          1. I am the one who complained about the peer review, not Kurykh.
          2. Lacking any trail of articles that refer to the one you cited, it fails WP:SCIENCE anyway, and so confers no notability on the topic.
          3. AfD is not decided by counting votes anyway. Kurykh had to decide if the keep opinions were based on an acceptable case for notability, and decided (correctly IMO) that they were not. That is not an abuse of his discression as an admin.
          Please see WP:N. Notability is not confered by primary sources alone, but that is all that you and the others are able to offer on this sorry topic. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Many people say keep" is, as I have said ad nauseam, an argumentum ad populum argument. Sorry for the plethora of Latin here, but you are only rehashing an already refuted argument. —Kurykh 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever language you use, your disdain for the people who participated in the debate doesn't need translation. --JJay 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the previous thirteen debates on the issue. How often must this discussion be repeated? I certainly agree to a redirect anywhere that would resolve the issue. >Radiant< 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorseI simply can't see a valid encyclopedic article coming out of the ashes of this lot. We are better off without it - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for "The Truth"TM Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a deletion review. It's for discussion about the deletion process itself, not about the article. The arguments for deletion were already made in the AfD, and rejected by a majority. — Omegatron 13:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the talk page is undeleted, and has been tagged for speedy deletion at least twice now. I added a warning there. - Nabla 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion These are promotional hoaxes trying to profit at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility. --Tbeatty 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote and there was nothing worth keeping in the articles as they stood. Articles on hoaxes and fringe theories are hard to write well. These weren't it. --John 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion on the grounds that there has been no violation of deletion policy and the closing admin did not err in reading consensus. The purpose of an AfD, as people have said, is not a vote, but a discussion. The earlier 12 debates and the lack of policy grounds used by Keep voters would undoubtedly have been key in the decision - it wasn't even just a lack of formal citation, on reading the debate, but a series of "it should have an article" arguments. Orderinchaos 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Brown's gas article has plenty of citations and sources, and "it should have an article" is absolutely a reason to keep it in an AFD debate. You cannot simply say "those AFD opinions don't matter"; they are valid, and claiming they didn't count towards consensus is illegitimate. Georgewilliamherbert 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It should have an article" = WP:ILIKEIT, as so is not a valid argument for keeping an article. This is part of the policies that are being followed here. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --EMS | Talk 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are going to cite policy, cite actual policy. WP:ILIKEIT is an essay. WP:SCIENCE is not policy or guideline. Neither should ever be cited as policy--JJay 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, "It should have an article" = "This topic comes up repeatedly in questions. There are real products in the real world named this and in at least moderate use. There is an associated pseudoscientific hoax that people are asking about a lot, and the verifyable debunking of which is notable and a useful topic". There are plenty of WP core goal, policy, and guideline compliant reasons for keeping the article. There are verifyable sources as to the patents, low-volume usage in industry of Brown's gas welding equipment, and to the HHO hoax/pseudoscience stuff. Since these exist, there is no valid reason to delete the articles. Don't cover up the sources and arguments on the keep side to make false claims of tidy deletability. ILIKEIT's companion is IDONTLIKEIT, and that's equally bogus. Georgewilliamherbert 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, an encyclopedia utilizes third party sources to cite statements made in articles/academic publications/news (in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:RS. All academic publications, in good faith, must be considered as such unless there is peer review that says the contrary. Absence of peer review cannot, by default, establish breach of the WP:RS policy, especially if an article has already been published in a known academic journal. If third party sources exist that can be cited according to WP:CITE, then there is justification for statements to be made in an article that utilize proper citation. I move that this debate become focused on establishing what sources are consistent with WP:RS rather than "should such articles exist"; The existence of a single source that meets WP:RS is grounds for the existence of an article that utilizes said source for proper citation. Essentially this debate should become about policy, and the application of WP:RS. Noah Seidman 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised this user has a commercial interest (see bottom of page) in propagating this fantasy. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion review is about Wikipedia policy of which I have no commercial interest. A deletion review debate, according to Wikipedia policy, pertains to the conclusion of a AfD debate, not the content of the article in question, therefore conflict of interest in this particular debate is irrelevant. Mention of "fantasy" brings the content of the article in question into this debate, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy regarding the purpose of a deletion review; Nomen NescioGnothi seauton has officially breached the policy of the deletion review process. Noah Seidman 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have not contributed to the article in question, showing good faith that I believe a third party article can be created, I would like to refer the closing administrator to the following talk page; dealing with an conflict of interest on the part of Nomen NescioGnothi seauton: Talk:Medical literature Noah Seidman 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you refrain from turning this into a personal matter? My edits on whatever article is irrelevant to the fact that you have a COI with these articles. Since there is no reason to derail this DRV I sincerely ask you to remove the inappropriate comment. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This example of conflict of interest goes direct toward your credibility in this deletion review; the example you cited regarding me is directly comparable to your profile page; the statement clearly says "my medical site". Noah Seidman 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting: WP:RS says nothing about a single reliable source establishing that an article in encyclopedic. Also, when I look at WP:N and WP:V, the request in for "reliable sources". Note that this is plural, not singular. --EMS | Talk 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N exactly how many sources is required to be encyclopedic? Two [2] would be plural. Noah Seidman 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does a source require a reliable source to be determined unreliable, or can un-reliability be determined by the general consensus/opinions of a debate?
If general consensus is used to determine an article should be deleted, and general consensus does not require a majority [>50%], can a general consensus be used to substantiate recreation of an article?
Given the specific ratio of votes, in the relevant deletion review debate, does this establish a baseline for what general consensus is, or is general consensus determined on an AfD by AfD basis? Noah Seidman 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a bunch of wikilawyering, and I see no need to respond further to it. --EMS | Talk 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - DRV is not AfD. Please discuss the deletion process and not the merits of the article itself. But if you're going to make claims that the article inherently violates WP:RS and WP:NOR, to the point that this overrules a clear consensus against deletion, you need to back up those claims. Reliable sources were included for the claims made by proponents. Criticisms and debunking were included for a neutral point of view. The criticisms and debunking were not invented by Wikipedians; they were attributed to the prominent notable critics who made them, and reliable sources were cited for their criticisms. Please actually read the deleted articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions based on past deletion nominations or Nomen's baseless claims. — Omegatron 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, feel free to provide any reputable scientific source stating miracle gas exists or that it is a hoax. Claiming Randi is a valid source for criticism is ludicrous. Do we use him to point out Intelligent Design is bogus? Or that those claiming HIV is not related to AIDS are misinforming us? Clearly it is a scientific claim therefore we need scientists to refute it otherwise we are violating WP:NOR. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore them; then either temporarily fully protect them or temporarily block their spammers, so that their spammers cannot edit them back to the spam while any admins that know about the science involved eliminate the spam and sort the matter into these topics:-
    • With Brown's gas, oxygen and hydrogen having no unusual properties but staying mixed all the way from the electrolyser to the torch. If this is real-world technology, keep this matter in a section of its own.
    • Unreal claims for properties of oxyhydrogen mixtures (in both pages) made by particular alleged processes. Summarise, eliminate spam, make it clear that this matter is hoax. If this hoax is widely heard of among welders etc, then it is noteworthy as a hoax and the public needs to be warned that it is hoax.
    • Water-fuelled car: perhaps insert a section distinguishing the nonexistent water-fuelled car from a car run on hydrogen which was made earlier by electrolyzing water; but neither of these is really a use of oxyhydrogen.
    • The section Brown's gas#Atomic welding may to refer to "monatomic hydrogen" (which gets 9290 ghits) or "atomic hydrogen": see Atomic hydrogen welding.
    If this gets the total matter reasonably short, merge into Oxyhydrogen. Let HHO gas and Brown's gas redirect to appropriate sections of Oxyhydrogen. Anthony Appleyard 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Atomic hydrogen' and 'monatomic hydrogen' are the same thing, actually. The way, the truth, and the light 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion and run separate AfDs for the two different articles. I always say that bundled nominations of several articles into one is blatant arms twisting and a room for abuse or misunderstanding both by voters and the closing admin. As one of admins put it: 383 revisions restored: AFD was for HHO, not Brown's Gas. Conflating the two and deleting this one was in error. HHO is the hoax, Brown's Gas has long and notable scientific/industrial history). `'юзырь:mikka 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion and re-nominate each with a cogent argument for deletion. The AfD process was deficient from the start. I'm really sick of these throw it against the wall and see if it sticks nominations, and this a good example of why we need to really rethink the deletion process as it is currently practiced. The deletion process is supposed to produce a rough consensus for deletion. But when the nomination is not specific, as in this case, the discussion goes all over the place, as in this case, and no clear consensus can be discerned from the process, as in this case. We really need to insist that the nominations are specific as to why an article should be deleted, and then focus on that. The idea that deletion can be a moving target, and that the article and the discussion can change during the process, and still produce a result that reflects consensus is ridiculous. Dhaluza 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see this as a "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" situation - this article and its associated ones (see above) have been deleted every time they've been debated. EliminatorJR Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, the information in page Brown's gas has 2 components:-
    1. Unseparated oxygen-hydrogen mixture going from the electrolyser to the torch. Sounds unsafe but likely.
    2. Strange claims for that mixture's properties, similarly to HHO gas.
    I suppose that it could be that with the gases mixed all through instead of them having to take time mixing in the torch, that may make the flame a bit hotter; but not all the fancy HHO-gas-type claims. Anthony Appleyard 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a most difficult one. It would be fine to have a decent and informative article about Hydrogen quackery, but I'm not sure whether this is only difficult or impossible. The now-deleted article versions were noticably better than the older ones, but not to the extent to fully convince me. But the worst point is, that we don't have reliable sources to debunk this nonsense and with the fundamentalist handling of WP:V and WP:NOR these policies have turned against their creators. WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door, now it is used by them to eliminate any counter argument from their articles. Have a look at the mess at Water fuel cell. Without a new policy Wikipedia:This encyclopedia obeys the laws of physics I'm unclear how to counter this crap. Summary: I'm clueless how to proceed. Compare als my last AfD statement [6]. --Pjacobi
  • How long has the WP:NOR rule been in effect? (Page Wikipedia:No original research was created at 15:15 on 21 December 2003.) It is hard to see how the dispute re these two pages, and queries about the page Water fuel cell, can be finally solved without allowing some simple provable proof or disproof based on simple known laws of physics and chemistry (rather than advanced complicated new scientific theories). In "WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door", who were the "physics cranks"? Were they people who thought they knew the laws of physics but did not and were talking rubbish? Or were they people making valid scientific reasoning and were the people complaining about them non-scientists who could not understand the scientific reasoning? And, if (for example), there are three items of information X and Y and Z, and an editor has external references for X and Y but not for Z, and in Wikipedia he says correctly that Z can be proved from X and Y, how obvious must the line of reasoning be before the WP:NOR rule does not apply or can be bent? (See "De minimis non curat lex"). If the WP:NOR rule should be revised, then it must be revised. I and likely many other Wikipedia editors have been handcuffed various times by the WP:NOR rule not letting the editor mention how one or two basic scientific points affect the topic of the page being edited. Anthony Appleyard 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone please explain how this violates WP:RS and WP:NOR? Still these accusations are coming in, even though a majority of competent users voted that the article was acceptable as written. For instance:
    • Ruggero Santilli claims that this gas burns at a very high temperature because it sublimates tungsten.[Santilli's journal article] Don Lancaster points out that this is actually not sublimation, but oxidation, since it's carried out in air.[Lancaster's magazine article]
      • How is this original research? We're not inventing our own explanation for the effect; we're attributing and citing a notable critic.
      • How are these sources not reliable? Both are verifiable sources for the claims made by either party. Both have gone through third-party editorial review and are not self-published.
      • How is this not neutral? It presents a somewhat dubious claim made by the proponent, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of what's actually happening in this situation.
    • News programs claim that this company has produced a water-fuelled car.[Cite news sources themselves] Notable pseudoscience debunker James Randi points out that this is an old hoax, and explains why it doesn't make sense.[James Randi's newsletter] Dr. Ali T-Raissi (Hydrogen Research Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center), and Sieglinde Kinne (Energy Efficiency Engineer for the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center) also explain how this couldn't work, due to the efficiencies of the chemical processes involved.[Cite this to the newspaper articles that reported on these scientists' explanations]
      • How is this original research? We're not debunking the water-fuelled car based on our own theories; we're attributing and citing a notable critic and two reputable scientists.
      • How are these sources not reliable? The news sources for both the claims and rebuttals are verifiable, not self-published, and have gone through third-party editorial review. The source for Randi's claim is self-published, but is a reliable source with which one can verify that he actually criticized them in the way that we say he said.
      • How is this not neutral? It presents a completely bogus claim made by the reporters, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of how this isn't possible according to normal physics, and a criticism from a notable debunker that this is a common hoax used to get money from gullible investors.
    Please explain what's wrong with an article written in this fashion. I can't fathom how this violates any policies. Please actually read the articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions about its merits. — Omegatron 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Given that the article got removed on notability grounds, this is just a bunch of irrelevant wikilawyering.
      Omegatron has consistently shown himself to have an exteme bias in favor of this stuff. This is just one more example of the lengths he is willing to go to to have an articke on it in Wikipedia. IMO, he cares not at all about policy, even as he cites it. --EMS | Talk 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was deleted by Kurykh, with a reference to reliable sources and recreation, not notability. You're the one claiming that it's not notable, but several people in the AfD have shown you that it is.
    • Several people continue to claim on this page that the article is original research or has no reliable sources, so I am asking them to demonstrate why. This is not even close to "WikiLawyering".
    • Yes, I want an article on this stuff, while you would prefer to delete most of our articles on pseudoscientific topics. I think everyone is already quite aware of this. You don't need to point out the obvious. When people disagree like this, we hold an AfD, a majority votes to keep the article, and the article is kept. — Omegatron 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has already been mentioned to you that Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion explicitly states that "[t]hese processes are not decided through a head count". The issue is whether the keep opinions were properly disregarded, and repeating the head count says nothing about that. What you are trying to do is proof by assertion and that is another example of wikilawyering and your trying every trick in the book to have an article on this topic. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in response to Pjacobi just above) - It is my suggestion that we adjourn back to WP:SCIENCE and see about getting it functional. The goal of the proposed policy IMO is to establish that an topic which has not been adequately enough vetted in either the scientific or popular press enough so that there is (or can be) a case against it is not eligible to be part of Wikipedia. The lack of attention and critical analysis that this has gotten in the literature really are the issue for the AfD. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn based on Femto's concerns about the AfD process. I think the basic points in favor of overturning have all been made above and I will not repeat them here. --A. B. (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Omegatron and Femto. ATren 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn particularly in the case of Brown's gas which was not debated in the Afd but which was deleted anyway. If the opinions were recounted there were more in support of Brown's gas than there were for HHO gas. Deleting the content will not help the recommended merge of information into the other articles mentioned. Also many editors seem to be confused about whether the article is supporting a hoax or is indicating the article is about the hoax controversy. GB 08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of HHO gas or at the very least redirect to oxyhydrogen and keep the salt. Otherwise, we are just going to be back here in a few months. And though it pains me, Overturn Brown's Gas and send back to AfD so it can have its own debate, as it appears to have a fraction more validity. EliminatorJR Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why you think this should be deleted when the AfD showed no consensus for deletion?
    This is DRV, not AfD. Please comment on the deletion process, not your personal opinion of the validity of the article. — Omegatron 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, the article was deleted for lack of sources. Guess what, there are no sources, therefore the process was totally valid and no violation can be detected. Of course, you are free to provide a scientific source detailing the technology or the hoax. We both know you can't. Not even a neutral non-promotional news item exists. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is factually incorrect. There were numerous sources attesting to there being such things as "Brown's Gas", and HHO proponents, etc. They exist. They also fail any reasonable reliability guide for scientific statements. If the articles were fawningly repeating the hoax info, then they'd be deletable. They were not, particularly the Brown's gas article. It was sourced. There exist small numbers of Brown's gas electrolyzer welding units in the world, which are not noticably better than other source or mix-on-site oxyhydrogen welders. But they're real, and the reality is reliably sourced. Deleting "for lack of sources" is misrepresenting the record and grounds to reinstate the articles, period. Georgewilliamherbert 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian_Crecente (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_12&oldid=139097550"