Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.

If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article.

— Omegatron 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted" Nice quote but how about this one: Wikipedia deals with legitimate scientific controversies by addressing them, not by excluding one side of the debate. However, this only applies when a legitimate scientific controversy can be shown to exist; ideas which are ignored by all but their proponents are likely not notable. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a quote from an essay with little or no consensus. It barely addresses the point you are responding to, which is quoted from a guideline with a strong consensus. It also doesn't apply; it is about science articles, whereas this is specifically an article about the psuedoscientific claims of a company that has achieved widespread media attention for those claims. JulesH 08:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you keep ignoring the fact there is no reputable source to debunk or substantiate HHO gas. Please advise as to why we should allow that violation of WP:RS. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"repeated disruptive nominations" rather misses the point that this has been deleted numerous times, always for the same concern: lack of verifiable independent evidence. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Response to accusation of bad faith This user states "treating the topic from a neutral, scientific point of view." A valid position and all I keep asking him is to provide WP:RS to validate the article or to debunk it. His suggestion it is a hoax needs to be substantiated with the hitherto impossible to find WP:RS. Thereby making the allegation it is a hoax WP:OR. The articles, although well intended fail WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and everything discussed in previous deletions. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been asked by Omegatron to elaborate further on my reasoning. I will but I first want to make sure I understand his comments correctly. Omegatron claims this article is regarding a hoax, yet this is not at all mentioned in the article. In addition please do not quote WP:Abuse of deletion process like it's chips, I don't see how it fits in here. --Javit 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if it's an article debunking a hoax, why isn't the fact that it's a hoax mentioned at all? This is just spam. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sorta. Ugh. Perhaps it's time to consider another alternative here - the fact that this article keeps being resurrected in a slightly different form by a different editor is a fairly strong indication that this is a notable subject that people keep coming here to find information about. Certainly by now there must be at least some reliable sources out there treating the subject as a hoax. If there are then I see no reason an article treating this subject as a hoax or pseudoscience cannot be written. If we delete it again it's just going to rear its ugly head as a snake-oil article again in the future. Either it needs to be fixed by making it a documented article about the pseudoscience or it needs to be deleted and salted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt yet again. Redirect to Oxyhydrogen. There is no reliable scientific evidence that Brown's gas or HHO (Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen) is anything more than oxyhydrogen. It is the result of a 200 year old process of decomposition of water (2H₂O) by electricity to yield 2H₂ and O₂. These can then be combined in combustion to get back a fraction of the energy it took to break down the water molecule. It is not steam or water vapor (which would consist of H₂O molecules). It is nonsense to propose that it makes water into a fuel, since there is much energy lost in the process compareed to just using the initial electricity to run the car or whatever. The only reason to discuss this in Wikipedia is as debunking of pseudoscience, which could be done in a paragraph in Oxyhydrogen. Appearance of its promotors on TV shows, or the obtaining of patents does not show it is more than pseudoscience. There is a lack of publications in respected peer reviewed scientific journals. The best the article has ever done is to present a mass of pseudoscientific claims and then some debunking links, in an ongoing battle. NPOV does not require equal parts of B.S. and truth in an article about every piece of pseudoscience, as if the result were an ongoing scientific debate. This has not reached that level. Edison 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Although one editor thinks there has been insufficient time to include sourced criticism -see history to confirm this is an incorrect assertion[2]- he removes anything resembling a caveat to its veracity.[3][4] This is why keeping a neutral article to debaunk both claims is impossible. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  What I'm removing is weasel words and empty criticism. If you want to add good content to the article, go right ahead. — Omegatron 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • User:Omegatron's edits look fine to me. First of all, there seems little doubt that the gas does exist and is created via the technique described, so saying it is "allegedly" created is a pointless weasel word. It is not necessary to point out that a patent doesn't guarantee the process works; this is obvious. The claim that oxyhydrogen is an "unproven or hypothetical substance" is plain wrong. The substance clearly exists, so describing it as a "supposed gas" is unwarranted. The media coverage was not about the promotion of the gas, so removal of this was correct. On to the second set of edits, Brown's gas clearly exists as it is used commercially; it is not necessary to have explicit sources for statements in the lead section that are already well sourced in the main body of the article, so removing the fact tags was appropriate; the fact tag on line 11 was attached to a statement that was sourced to the patent referenced at the end of the paragraph; similarly for the tag on line 20 and that on line 33. The removal of "peer review" and "scientific method" from the see also section was mandated by the NPOV policy because no sourced criticism suggested the lack of these was an issue. Similarly, the removal of category 'hoaxes' was necessary because no sourced criticism calls the subject a hoax. JulesH 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion There is considerable confusion here. I'll be speaking from the 'mainstream science' perspective:
  • Brown's gas is a well known and fully accepted term for a mainstream science thing. It's just the name given to a mixture of good old hydrogen molecules and the oxygen molecules we know and love - in a ratio that makes it suitable for brazing and welding and such. Our present article on Browns gas seems pretty much OK to me. It explains that some crackpots make wild claims for it. It may be a little under-sourced and a but stubby - but there most definitely has to be an article about Brown's gas - and this is as good as we've got.
  • HHO is a crackpot/pseudo-science thing dreamed up by the tinfoil hat brigade as a way to weasel out of any simple scientific debunk of the BS they are pushing. Most scientists of any repute believe that what is claimed to be some mysterious 'stuff' involving a lot of made-up terms like 'magnecules' is simply Brown's gas - which as I explained is a regular, well-understood, mainstream gas that is actually used in some specialised industrial processes. This comes as no surprise because Browns gas is why you get from the hydrolysis of water if you are stupid enough not to separate out the hydrogen and the oxygen (Brown's gas is pretty amazingly unstable!) - and that's what all of the crackpot water fuelled car and water fuel cell guys are actually doing.

  Given all of that - one may well argue that there should not be an article about HHO (because it's bullshit and Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting bullshit) or that there should be an article (because it's bullshit and we need to say so, clearly and with references) - or the crackpots may wish to argue that there should be an article (because it's real and they can prove it with acceptable peer-reviewed scientific references as required by Wikipedia's rules). An alternative is to redirect HHO to Brown's gas - but doing that will cause the crackpots to tear up a sensible mainstream article on a (relatively) important topic - which is disruptive and unacceptable.

  So - I don't know whether the HHO article should live or die - that's more Wikipolitics than I can take right now - but what I really, really don't want to happen is to have it redirect to Browns gas and spread the annoyance still further.

  Thanks! SteveBaker 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Brown's gas as far as I know is not an accepted term in mainstream usage. We already have the mainstream information at Oxyhydrogen and the two articles that I have proposed merging with it. The way, the truth, and the light 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. Brown's gas is the same thing as oxyhydrogen. Nothing magical about it. That some crackpots claim magic properties doesn't make the fundamental concept wrong, and certainly doesn't mean we should delete the article. We have a duty to cover bad science as well as good science.
  2. Actually, the crackpots will say there shouldn't be an article, if that article is well-written and contradicts their views. We saw that in the other AfDs, and we're probably seeing it here, too. — Omegatron 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable because the media have picked up on the story (see, e.g., [5], [6]). Article needs restructuring and cleanup, but that's no reason to delete it. JulesH 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: some of this seems to be stemming from a content dispute between the nominator and an article contributor. There's a bit more to sort through so I am going to take a more neutral stance until I have had more time to review what's up here, but I do think the accusations of a bad-faith nom are unwarranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and yes, I know they are about a load of rubbish They are both valid articles. The fact that it is an article about a thing that is rubbish it not a reason to delete it. There are many other valid articles about things that are rubbish and Wikipedia is the first place many people will look for the truth. The fact that so many people hate this subject rather demonstrates its notability.

I wish more people would try to get that:

1, an article about rubbish is not a rubbish article

2. Wikipedia is the first place that many people will look for honest information about this kind of thing.

And I wish Nescio would make an honest attempt to understand this. Gnothi seauton. Man with two legs 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See my user page and Replies to common objections for similar sentiment. — Omegatron 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nescio understands the meaning of WP:SCI, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV. Those suffice to make this article incompatible with policy. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that you do not. The two tags that you added to Brown's gas were objectively wrong which is why I removed them. Try looking again at what Omegatron says about it. Have you understood that Omegatron is opposed to belief in the special properties of HHO gas? Man with two legs 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Idea. Delete and salt these articles, and create one called HHO gas controversy or such like. Then we're not leaning to the idea that it's scientifically valid. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Don't you mean delete and redirect? I oppose the "controversy" idea. You really think it's impossible to write a neutral article that explains the scientific validity of the topic without putting "controversy" in the title? — Omegatron 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Provided there are reputable scientific sources debunking this hoax what about renaming it to HHO gas (hoax)? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

The difficulty is that when something is very obviously scientifically rubbish, scientists don't bother to write peer-reviewed articles saying so. So there is not much out there explicitly debunking it. For example, if you look up Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations you will find many sites debunking them, but those sites are not from reputable scientific journals. Man with two legs 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• comment does not appear consensus is going to be reached on this anytime soon. we have people claiming to be in the scientific community, a nominator whose intentions are questioned, and an editor who has a conflict of interest being the primary contributors to its deletion discussion. Does anyone else see a HUGE problem with this? I don't know where we go from here, but this conversation should probably be closed. Barsportsunlimited 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Where else does one go to debunk pseudoscience? Paul Studier 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strong Delete for both and Salt HHO - Violates WP:SPAM and fails WP:SCIENCE. Most of the references are from one campany. Overall this article is very POV to the point the I must take any assertion of notability with more than a grain of salt. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - In response to a posting on my talk page, I am reaffirming my vote. I will admit that I had not looked at Brown's gas, but having done so see no value in it either. I must admit that I am more than a little disturbed by a set of "references" that is full of YouTube postings and hytechapps.com links. The newspaper articles are more germane but these seem to be more of a local human interest flavor rather than demonstrating any real notability. Also, claims of interest from car companies and the like cannot be taken seriously without confirmation by said companies. This whole business smells like a fraud to me, both technically and in the case being made for its supposed notability. The sense that I get is one of a campaign by the HHO "crowd" to gain attention with Wikipedia being part of their marketing plan. --EMS | Talk 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    What you are missing (and it's quite understandable because reading all of the papers on the HHO nonsense is painful) is that the HHO proponents go to great lengths to say that HHO is not Browns gas - and the the latter is indeed just a simple mixture of H2 and O2. So both the kooks and the scientists agree on what Browns gas is - there is no reason to delete a valid article on a valid topic. Brown's gas should never have been a part of this AfD - it's HHO that is the problem. SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see a case for notability for Brown's gas either! Certainly the case for its notability is not made in the article. Based on the "keep"s for Brown's gas it may be well enough known that my opinion is moot, but IMO it is another of these miracle hydrogen claims that does not deserve a Wikipedia article. --EMS | Talk 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The claims that HHO gas represents a new state of matter seem to be ridiculous bogosity. However the present version of the article seems to adequately debunk the arguments that sound pseudoscientific. My only concern is the 'citation needed' tags, that may be hard to remove. I generally like Omegatron's arguments, and I am influenced by how uncomfortable I am with version of the article created by Nomen Nescio, the nominator of the AfD, and how much more reasonable is the June 5 version by Omegatron. (See a diff that compares Nescio's version with Omegatron's version here). If the 'fact' tags can't be removed within 90 days, I think I would vote to delete at that time. I'm assuming that some of those voting 'Keep' will work on removing the tags. EdJohnston 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  It would be easier to get rid of the fact tags if they weren't repeatedly put after stupid things like "HHO is a gas^{[citation needed]}" by the nominator. — Omegatron 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The new version from Omegatron has repaired the problem with the 'fact' tags that I noted in my above comment. EdJohnston 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The articles look like one big attempt to push various advertising sources as some kind of valid scientific claim. Even the news sources are not really reliable sources because the news reports are basically repeating what would be pre-written press release material with very little peer review.

Fnagaton 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the reverences to the news programming--not advertisements--not very high quality programming, but mainstream media coverage none the less. The patents do not show the value of the invention, but the confirm its existence. Patent applications, of course, mean nothing at all. One peer reviewed article, tho I cannot figure out why they accepted it. The ArXiv article is of course non-reviewed--he has another one citing himself at oai:arXiv.org:physics/0608229 (2006-12-20). This is sufficient to show notability as peseudoscience. If the broadcast media stupidly think something is sufficiently plausible to cover, they make it notable, and !votes that the science is not valid are meaningless as against policy. DGG 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - News articles aren't self-promotion. This, however, is self-promotion.  :-) — Omegatron 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Look at their diagram for a water molecule at 1:32! — Omegatron 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks dangerously unstable to me. 4HO₂ -> 2H₂O + 3O₂  :-)
• Keep. All delete votes appear to be based on the fact that this is pseudoscience. We're allowed to have articles on that, and I know that at least Brown's gas is notable: for example, noting the number of people (as above) that think 'Brown's gas' is actually the correct name for oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  I believe that "Brown's gas" is an old-fashioned name for a mixture of H2 and O2 in just the same way that "Muriatic acid" is the old name for HCl. However, if you go to your local swimming pool chemicals store and ask for Hydrochloric acid so you can adjust the pH of your pool - you'll get a blank stare until you correct yourself and ask for Muriatic acid. Same thing with brazing and welding equipment - "Brown's gas" is the term they use. SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Move to "HHO gas controversy" or some similar title as per EliminatorJR, and fix it so that it is clearly an article about the controversy and not a seemingly spammy article suggesting that it is anything other than questionable science. If there is no way to do this, then I would lean delete. EdJohnston's idea also has merit. Orderinchaos 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If that is done, it should be merged with Brown's gas. Since Brown's gas is the more famous (I believe), it should be titled after it. The way, the truth, and the light 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    That is the one thing I think we must avoid at all costs. The kooks claim that HHO is not Brown's gas. If it was, there would be no controversy because mainstream science believes that their experiments are producing Brown's gas. We shouldn't 'pollute' a nice, simple article about a real subject with all of the pseudo-science debate that's bound to infect HHO. An article about HHO should explain what the nut-jobs think it is and what mainstream science knows it to be - Brown's gas should be in the 'See Also' section because it's not what the debate is about. SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete HHO. not all kookery is notable. Keep Brown's. `'юзырь:mikka 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A yet another axample of inherently bad idea to put two articles into one nomination. `'юзырь:mikka 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed! SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This business is related to hydrogen fuel injection which survived it own AfD not too long ago. An idea may be to merge all of these hydrogen-related items if they are to he kept. --EMS | Talk 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether HHO / Aquygen is true or not, if it is heard of among some part of the public (e.g. among welders), it needs an article. E.g. there is no such thing as a plasma rifle, but plasma rifle has a Wikipedia article. If it is a hoax, people need to be warned that it is a hoax. Anthony Appleyard 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to all Apparently this has become an argument as to my motives (which sounds like a violation of WP:AGF) and "everybody should know this is a hoax." Please let me remind you what this is about. I am the first to point out hoaxes. However, that does not negate the need for WP:RS (please provide a reputable scientific source debunking this, this is policy!!) or explain why it is impossible to amend the article to clearly show it is a hoax without editors removing those caveats. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (with major doubts but no prejudice about re-creation an article debunking the hoax using reliable sources). As said above this article is not debunking the hoax but perpetuing it, giving the still active snake oil merchants better business opportunities -- and this seems to be the main reason, why this gets re-created. So far well-meaning editors who want to keep the article to provide a NPOV covering of this scam have not demonstrated their ability to do so. --Pjacobi 09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also there may be very specific WP:COI concerns, AFAIK User:Nescio is in the business of selling this stuff. --Pjacobi 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I had another contributor in mind. --Pjacobi 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the Afd was created in response to my edit[7] removing {{hoax}} and {{advert}}, which are clearly incorrect and were placed on the article by User:Nescio to disrupt the progress. None of the contributors to this article have had any intention of promoting it, nor giving it an air of authenticity. John Vandenberg 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - just a case study on how the effort of snake oil sellers and misinterpretation of the concept of an encyclopedia conspire to make this a mess. The article now contains the claims: South Korean Hung-Kuk Oh of Ajou University, for instance, claims that the implosion effect cannot be explained by modern physics, and proposes that the effect is caused by a "strong gravitational cavity" from "crystallizing π-bonding of hydrogen" referenced to this Elsevier publication [8]. Wow, a scientific paper, the naive reader may think. But there appear zillions of scientific papers every month, the good, the bad the ugly (not to mention of all the irrelevant ones, driven by the publish or perish law). If taking single published papers as valid references, nearly everything can be proven or disproven. But let's analyse the: In 1998 Hung-Kuk Oh made and published an experiment which nothing less than cannot be explained by modern physics. He's not a physicist and it is not a physics publication, but it's a start. We should imagine his university showering him with money to re-produce his experiment all over the world under the widening eyes of physicist, trying to secure to Physics Nobel Prize for Korea. But what actually happens? Nothing. The paper get's cited twice, and again not in physics journals. Editors! This was just a random fluke within the vast ocean of published papers. Nothing to see here, just go away, no knowledge has been created, which needs reporting in an encyclopedia. (Of course, if someone can find reliable sources which connect Hung-Kuk Oh and Ajou University with the Korean branch of the snake oil sellers, there may be small scandal to report). --Pjacobi 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  In this case, I don't see your problem. The article says that Hung-Kuk says this - and the reference backs up that he said that. It doesn't say that what he says is true. SteveBaker 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (but rewrite and closely monitor for the gradual inclusion of junk) I have held off voting while I read around our policy documents - but having done so, I believe the course we should take is clearly laid out by policy. We need to return to the basic policy laid out in WP:SCIENCE - and especially WP:SCIENCE#Criteria. It says:

  In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Widely cited. Papers covering the topic have been widely[1] commented on in academic writing within the topic's field.
  2. Outside notability. The topic is notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources outside of academic publications.

  The footnote after the word 'widely' says that it's not enough for a lone paper to have been published - it has to have been quoted widely by academics other than those involved in the paper. I don't believe that can be said of any of the HHO papers - which are pretty much dismissed out of hand by academics in the field. So HHO fails the first test. What about the second test? Well, I think it's true to say that there has been quite a bit of coverage of the topic in the popular press - so I think it's reasonable to pass this article on the second criteria. But read on...our policy goes on to say:

  Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be handled as scientific. For example, the Book of Genesis itself is primarily covered as a religious scripture rather than as a cosmology. On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific and religious doctrine, are properly evaluated both on a scientific and theological basis. Similarly, subjects purporting to have a scientific basis may be noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases, such as UFOs, which can usefully be discussed from several different perspectives.

  HHO clearly falls into the same category as creationism - there are a bunch of crackpots pushing the idea against the beliefs of the vast majority of scientific evidence to the contrary. It is clear that we can only justify this article's continued existance under the second of the two criteria because the popular press is covering it. That means that it is "noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases" - so clearly our policy directs us to write an article that discusses the matter from both perspectives. Note also that we cannot reject the article because HHO is pseudoscience - that is specifically listed as NOT a reason for deletion in Wikipedia:Notability (science)/Irrelevant arguments.

  So I have to conclude that this is a keep - per WP:SCIENCE and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. But clearly the article needs some serious rewriting to keep it within bounds of acceptability. We have to write an article that says that this is a belief that some people hold that is known not to be true. We are not allowed to write an article about how wonderful HHO gas is. So all of you HHO proponents who want to see this article continue - be prepared to see an article that you are not going to like.

  SteveBaker 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- contrary to repeated claims here, "Brown's gas" is not an old name for Oxyhydrogen. Check in your nearest chemistry department library's dark corners of dusty journals. It was discovered and described before Yull Brown's birth. If at all, an old name would be the German Knallgas. HHO, Aquygen and Brown's gas are just different brands of snake oil. --Pjacobi 11:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Even if Brown's gas is chemically just oxyhydrogen, the claims given about it make it into something else. --EMS | Talk 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. These are both just oxyhydrogen, but deserve their own articles because the proponents making dubious claims say that they are not. — Omegatron 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt HHO, split Brown's Gas to another AfD On the argument that HHO does not seem to have changed from what the prior AfDs have suggested; the arguments appear to be exactly the same which leads me to wonder just what's new about it. If the prior articles were readily available I'd say this is a G4 candidate - there surely aren't any new Keep arguments coming forth or any coverage about how this article has matured. In other words, what has changed from the prior three times this was AfD'd? By these grounds, Brown's Gas should be listed as a separate AfD candidate. Also, HHO article is somewhat disingenuous suggesting the concept has been covered by "NBC" and "Fox" news, when the references cited point to Local NBC and Fox affiliate news coverage rather than national network coverage, which is enough to blow it's WP:V credibility with me. LaughingVulcan 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you point out the part of WP:V this conflicts with? — Omegatron 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." If the source is not correctly cited, it is not verified. If it is a local news report masquerading as a national news report (especially if it does NOT verify the truth of the claims made but primarily notes that funding is being gotten for the promoting organization... triply especially if it flies in the face of established science or claims to be 'extrascientific' or some such, a national news source -not local- would be 'exceptional.') it fails having been verified. While it is used in the context of Burden of Proof, the long quote from Jimbo about citations being necessary seems to apply, especially if the report is incorrectly attributed. And, while it may not be part of the policy itself, the quote came from a post with an enlightening title, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Omitting an essential part of a reference is almost equivalent to lying about the source. If the sources are lied about, why should I trust any of the other information in the article? LaughingVulcan 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Notability of a science topic is met just by meeting ONE of the criteria on WP:SCIENCE. This easily meets criteria number 5, being covered by more than ten news organizations, and meets criteria number 7; popular belief. — Omegatron 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, and WP:SCIENCE is not even a guideline, only a proposed one. Therefore I do not feel bound to honor it. And you're switching arguments. I see that the sources section has indeed changed, but I see no exceptional sources. LaughingVulcan 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• And it doesn't answer my first question: Why does this article not qualify as WP:CSD G4?
  • "provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version"
  • Deletion policy: "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive." — Omegatron 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. And I asked what's different, as there isn't any history going back past the other AfDs. I'm not saying it isn't different, just that if the same result is coming up, and I'm wondering how the article has changed to reflect the prior AfDs. LaughingVulcan 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• And looking through the Article talk pages shows that it has gone through several permutations of editing, so G4 doesn't apply. LaughingVulcan 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Lots of people running in here to complain about this article, but I seem to be the only person actually contributing to it. Can someone please help? — Omegatron 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply The fact you are the main contributor but refuse the article to reflect that the "gas" is nonsense[9] is troubling. This inability to have a neutral and sourced article on the topic is the reason it was deleted time an time again. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt recreation. It doesn't have to be 100% identical to be a recreation. Doczilla 07:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It would seem that any true search for truth would have contacted and verified all encounters and research done by 3rd party interests... ie.: The alleged interest by gov., the universities that have recieved his machines for cross examination and reverse technology tests, or the other companies that supposedly had interest in aquiriing rights to use the claimed technology. Just because it doesn't fit our current understanding, does not mean that it cannot be. consider atomic energy views only a century ago.... I will say that this article does need re-written (with neutrality). — Huntja2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Huntja2 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Huntja2! Thanks for commenting here, but note that AfD is not a vote. (first and only edit)--Pjacobi 08:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Please think a bit: it says "Process for electrolyzing water that results in a gas with properties that defy the laws of physics". That's impossible; if you're doing serious research you can't say you break the laws of physics. It's clear to me that is another Dihydrogen monoxide hoax (HHO = H₂O = water!)... And, curiously, this article has a link to that. Maybe a scientist that wants to test Wikipedia's accuracy? --Neigel von Teighen 08:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Sourced adequately to plenty of reputable citations. Interesting article. Smee 09:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Comment Interesting? So it's alright to have hoaxes presented as normal as long as it's interesting? --Javit 09:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Sourced? Name one non-promotional reference. BTW, have just made the article less of an advertisement.[10] Unfortunately explicitely refuting this as non-science is consistently denied by some contributors. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Can some explain why this article has not been speedily deleted under CSD:G4 and CSD:G11? --EMS | Talk 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Added note: It is hard to say if this is a pure recreation given that I cannot see the previous versions, but based on the content it is very obvious that the recreation was by people who are intimately involved with HHO and who probably were involved with the previous articles. --EMS | Talk 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Update, it has now been speedied by User:Tom harrison as "g4; g11". [11] John Vandenberg 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  G4 does not apply, due to deletion review decision on March 14. G11 does not apply as it was not written exclusively for advertising. John Vandenberg 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted and protected from recreation this, and Brown's gas, and whatever else I could find. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Any chance of an explanation why? John Vandenberg 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As re-creation of deleted content, and promotional. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• The deleted content was not used to restarted this article, and G11 doesnt stretch that far. Are you going to close this Afd or restore the article? John Vandenberg 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore the articles. Take it to deletion review if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please close this AfD.

Your call, but can you close this AfD? It's already in DRV with multiple opinions. LaughingVulcan 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW - I do approve of this. I do not see that the previous content needed to be used directly under CSD:G4, but rather if the article was of similar content then CSD:G4 should apply. As for CSD:G11, the article was crafted to note that doubts exist but still was very definite about the claims of HHO gas. Overall, I think that the case made to permit recreation of this article back on March 14 was at best deceptive given the product that resulted. The article very much should have remained salted. --EMS | Talk 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:SNOW. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Neutral. May be a potentially notable piece of pseudoscience. But check to make sure. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Omegatron has restored the articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete recreation of deleted content; largely promotional. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Recreation of deleted articles is fine, and when done by independent parties is evidence of a need for an article.
  • When this article was deleted, it was specifically done so "w/o prejudice against creation of a sourced article".
  • Recreation of the exact same content as the deleted article is bad, of course, but this isn't the case. Re-written from scratch with reliable sources.
  • Please describe in detail which parts of Brown's gas and HHO gas you think are "largely promotional" or non-neutral. Have you actually read them? — Omegatron 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Protect if necessary, Continue Cleanup This article has gone through many changes from where I first encountered it above. In its current state it has moved beyond simple advocacy of what seems to me to be junk science into a fairly well written article which reflects concerns about the hoax. Diff of above two. Should it revert back to the first of them without revision another AfD would be in order. LaughingVulcan 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this version? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What should I be thinking of it? It's clear that you've been trying to polish the article into a form that you find acceptable. So is Omegatron.

As I read the article as it is now, I glean that there are problems with the theory as advocated by those with commercial interests. It doesn't have to scream "This is a hoax!" in 48 point sans serif. From what I make of the situation, you and Omegatron are in an edit war over the best way to elaborate on the controversy (or hoaxy aspects) of the topic. I don't think AfD is the place to resolve an edit war, if the article can otherwise be salvaged. And I think it can be from what I've seen of yours and Omegatron's work.

The article has moved from being a pure commercial promotional puff-piece of psuedoscience into something with far less POV (on either side of advocacy/pure hoax,) far better sourcing and description, and presenting both sides in a way that a rational person can make their conclusions about the factual validity of documented claims. (Which is the point of my diff above.) So, I think it's passed beyond the point of something deletable.

It would be far better if those of you involved in active editing would engage in dispute resolution to polish the article into a final form, than blow it away only to see the promotional puff-piece come back in a few months. But that's just my humble opinion. You're both working to make as good an article as you can, even though you might have significant differences over how it should be articulated. The article is evolving, so I don't understand the delete call at this point as originally proposed, in my humble opinion. LaughingVulcan 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of verifiable independent critique, and trout-slap Omegatron for undeleting an article where he is a major contributor while DRV is running. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Whether or not it is scientifically bunk or not, it has now attracted enough notability to warrant an article, so long as the article clearly indicates that it is an unproven theory with it's share of criticism.Sethie 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact some people keep removing every suggestion this is a scam is the reason the article can't be kept. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That is definatley a problem, however deletion would not be the way to solve it! Sethie 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an imaginary problem. I'm adding attributed, verifiable criticisms with reliable sources, while Nescio persists in adding unsourced weasel word criticisms, despite being reverted by at least three other editors and being asked to stop. — Omegatron 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I t5hink Mro should now consider this my last warning regarding his WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations. Discuss the topic and not the other editors. Also, the fact criticism can't be sourced is the principal reason the article needs to be deleted as we are left with just the view of proponents. Better known as advertisement. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that the main contributor to these articles has just unilaterally decided to undo the deletion while DRV was ongoing is very troubling. We should respect the deletion and simply go to DRV if we disagree. The current actions are rather disconcerning. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Info: I have just edited HHO gas somewhat. Anthony Appleyard 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, despite the gas itself being a probable hoax, the furore around the hoax itself is notable. The article should be better edited to reflect the fact that it is a universally debunked hoax, however. Neil ╦ 10:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - A furor within Wikipedia does not make this stuff notable. I see no evidence of outside notability, just some snookered local reporters and a group that has finally figured out how to play against Wikipedia's rules. I am less bothered by this being a scam in real world (as a scam can be notable) than I am about the case for notability here being a scam. --EMS | Talk 13:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. Nothing worth saving. --John 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is Wikipedia's duty to cover these topics, and the current articles are adequate enough not to get deleted. Femto 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• No it's not, not if there are no reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Of course not. But it remains my opinion that in these cases verifiability and reliability are fulfilled to the extent that deletion is not justifiable. Femto 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Then perhaps you should consider my point below. --EMS | Talk 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I really do not see the notability here. In the referenced items, we have:
  1. Web sites and press releases from the company the produces HHO. - That is not independent sourcing.
  2. Patents for HHO - That is interesting but patents do not confer notability.
  3. A CNN informercial - Given the obvious involvement of the HHO folks in that, it is not independent.
  4. Numerous local news coverage items, but no evidence that the story has ever been pick up on nationally. IMO, a scattering of local stories is not "significant coverage" under WP:N. There are all kinds of stories like that.
  5. Various YouTube postings, and bulliten board postings. As anyone can post to these places (and post anything they like even made-up stuff), they do not confer notability.
  6. A story in WorldNet Daily, a source that I have personally have never heard of and on which there is only a single short article on HHO. Both of those attributes argue against notability.

  In short, the evidence presented for notability, while copious, is uniformly useless and/or unreliable. This topic blatantly is not notable, and I call on those whose keep opinions are based on said notability to reconsider their opinion. --EMS | Talk 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• And an article in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
• I see only one patent in the references section.
• The "smattering of local stories" consists of at least eight news organizations covering at least six different states. And that's just the ones we've bothered to write down.
• Even local news coverage doesn't count as self-promotion; they're all secondary sources with editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. The idea that third-party news sources are "promotional" when they clearly criticize the topic is ludicrous. Have you even read the articles you're criticizing?
• I've never heard of WorldNetDaily, either, but it's apparently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That you personally haven't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable.

Several people have changed their votes from delete to keep. I think that counts for a lot. — Omegatron 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• It says that you and the other HHO folks have figured out which buttons to push on this issue, and this response is an example of that. I have some real problems with it, such as
  1. your saying that "local news coverage doesn't count as self-promotion". If you look at my reason for dismissing it, it is not for being promotional but rather for not qualifying as "significant coverage".
  2. You claim coverage from "eight news organizations covering at least six different states" but four of the eight news citations are for Wave3 in Louisville, KY, and another is for a YouTube video of a "Fox26" broadcast whose location is unidentified and for which there is no other evidence of its having covered HHO. So I only count four organizations and five states (since Louisville is in Kentucky and next to Ohio).
  3. You claim that these are "just the ones we've bothered to write down". I find it hard to believe that you all would have stopped at those if there was more to document.

I think this speaks of the kind of case that you all are making here. --EMS | Talk 00:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ten news organizations in six different states:
  • WTVT - Tampa Bay, Florida
  • Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Florida
  • St. Petersburg Times - St. Petersburg, Florida
  • KRIV Fox 26 News - Houston, Texas
  • KTRE - East Texas
  • KXAN - Austin, Texas
  • WFLD Fox News - Chicago, Illinois
  • KCBS Channel 2 News - Los Angeles, California
  • KSBI - Oklahoma
  • WAVE 3 News - Louisville, Kentucky
• All notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, not even counting online news sources like WorldNetDaily.
• Why the hell does the exact number even matter? Why should we not stop at this many? In any other article, this many news references would be considered unreasonable overkill. Just one or two of these is sufficient to demonstrate notability.
• You're still ignoring the journal article. — Omegatron 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• A single journal article does not "cut the mustard" under WP:SCIENCE, and a series of local news stories in so "significant coverage" under WP:N IMO. You are obviously a principal in this HHO business, seeking to give in the widest exposure possible. You are doing a good job making this seem notable, but every time I sanity test your claims, they come out as just another scam to me. --EMS | Talk 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a scam! It is a notable scam! That is the point of having an article about it. Omegatron has contributed to several articles on related scams and his POV is clear (and spelled out on his talk page): have articles that show these scams for what they are. This discussion is about deleting it completely, which would also remove the bit that tells people it is a scam. Omegatron himself drew this article to my attention and to user:SteveBaker's attention in full knowledge that we are both total non-believers in this kind of nonsense. There is no doubt that he is not a promoter of it. Man with two legs 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, to whomever may read this 70k+ mess of an AfD discussion: Yes, I also know Omegatron as a whistleblower and eliminator of desinformation, e.g. at the Ionocraft/Biefeld–Brown effect pages. Just check history and block log there. I'm the more paranoid of us and prefer deletion and he's generally for keeping and telling the plain story. But:

• With the recent extremist interpretation of WP:CITE, you cannot debunk anything yourself anymore.
• The HHO-scam would need a healthy dose of investigative journalism, but Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism. And until someone does this task, we are simply without first class secondary sources on this topic.
• And note: The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy and T. Nejat Veziroglu are partially in the same boat as Ruggero Maria Santilli and his Hadronic Journal. This would be a nice topic for investigative journalism too, but as the audience who is interested in it is so small, it wouldn't feed a journalist, I fear.

--Pjacobi 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously a principal in this HHO business, seeking to give in the widest exposure possible. --EMS

You obviously have an intimate knowledge of this article and its history, and your deductive reasoning abilities are unmatched. — Omegatron 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep: referenced and balanced for this hoax. Previous deletion is not a licence to salt. Thanks/wangi 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The fact Omegatron has taken it upon himself to aggressively "persuade" people commenting here to alter their statements I find at best unfortunate, and the fact he is incapable of voicing his position without using ad hominems regarding my person is highly inappropiate. With the current attention from less involved parties the article today[12] seems to be more about debunking than promoting this scam. Nevertheless I have grave doubts as to the capability of the community to prevent it returning to its advertisemnent version when the dust has settled. What turned out to be impossible and prompted me to start this debate and why it has been deleterd three times before. Should the article be kept yet, after say a month, once again only voice support lets then at least accept a speedy delete for the reasons in all four AfD's presented. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

1. You are right that this article is in danger of evolving into an advert, but if it does, then you, or anyone else, can simply revert it to a legitimate version.
2. One reason I feel strongly that articles like this should remain in Wikipedia is that if you Google something like this, Wikipedia is often the only hit you get that contains any critical material at all. So deleting it is to the advantage of fraudsters.
3. Omegatron has the right to persuade anyone who will listen, as have you. It can happen that people don't 'get' the reason for keeping (or deleting) an article on first look.
4. The reasons for keeping the articles are by no means limited to ad hominems.

Man with two legs 10:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Better Business Bureau, and so is under no obligation to report on every scam around. What may be useful and notable is an article on technology scams, which of course can include mention of these and other other hydrogen technology scams. --EMS | Talk 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, is, however, an encyclopedia, the sum of all human knowledge, and it is our job to cover everything notable in a neutral, verifiable way. This includes Category:Fraud, Category:Hoaxes, Category:Confidence_tricks, Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Protoscience, Category:Fringe science, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, List of minority-opinion scientific theories, ... — Omegatron 15:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is stated that "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge". That is not the same the same thing as documenting all human knowledge, and WP:NOT explicity states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information". I will happily call for a notable scam to be kept. IMO, this scam is not notable. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and WP:SALT As i'm not a scientist I can't speak to issues about the article's content. I however would vote delete on WP procedural grounds, as three previous community consensus decisions have gone delete. The only reason this article still remains is because various authors are gaming the wiki to disrupt it and make a point. While the merge suggestions may have some merit, all that will happen is that it will drag POV editors over to these articles and cause them to get worse. As for a rename, again this will only perpetuate the problems. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for disagreeing with that:

1. a deletion review voted for re-creation so the deletions are not reliable evidence
2. there was not a consensus for deletion, only a majority which is not at all the same thing
3. it is absurd to delete an article for procedural reasons. An article should stay or go on its merits only. Procedures are there to assist the maintenance of articles, not the other way round
4. if you look at Omegatron's user page and edit history, you will see he is keen on reliable, accurate articles and not disruptive. The same goes for me.

Man with two legs 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please, if you're going to keep this, then rewrite it in such way that it is clearly stated that it is a hoax; tolerating this kind of things can undermine Wikipedia's accuracy. Anyway, I prefer to see this deleted (already "voted" above... yes: AfD is not voting, but I don't know how to say it). On "HHO": it is impossible that an inorganic compound could be noted that way, it should be either HOH (though very rare) or H₂O (guess what it means!)... I'm a philology student but I had passed through Physics and Chemistry courses devoted to engineers and scientist... just because of fun and interest, so I'm not an expert but I know the basics. And inorganic nomenclature is a basic topic. --Neigel von Teighen 11:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It does make it clear that this is a hoax; that is rather the point of Omegatron's version. The word "hoax" appears in the intro to HHO gas. Man with two legs 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction Omegatron made sure it was not clear this is a scam. See the diffs I provided above. Only after fresh blood has forced him to let the caveatrs stand can we say the article is more or less acceptable. Nevertheless, as has been noted above, an article documenting scams and then using this as example sounds much better. It is less prone to removing criticism as Mr O has been doing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have answered this point on your talk page. Man with two legs 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your <redacted NPA> addition of weasel word criticisms has been reverted by me and at least three other people. Meanwhile, I've been adding verifiable, notable criticisms with reliable sources. — Omegatron 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you call me disruptive and I order you to stop your WP:NPA. The next one I will report. Second, feel free to provide an adequate source for criticism. No, Randi cannot be used to debunk scientific claims. Although notable no physician accepts him to dismiss the silly conspiracy stories regarding HIV and AIDS. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll say it again: Your edits are disruptive.

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

Go ahead and report me. — Omegatron 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. And how would you call an editor that against consensus insists the recreation of four times deleted articles is mandatory, to the point he even abuses admin tools in edit conflicts? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop behavior discussion! Let's discuss the article, please, not people. If you want to dispute Omegatron's behaivor, open an RfC. Eveything must be kept in order if we want to make reasonable contributions. --Neigel von Teighen 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold the phone! Are you suggesting I am discussing behaviour while simply trying to ask Omegatron to stop his harrasment of my person? Should you not ask him to refrain fromn WP:NP":NPA? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please file an RfC if you think I'm not editing the articles in a neutral manner. This isn't the place for personal attacks. — Omegatron 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making personal attacks Omegatron. Fnagaton 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, eh? Such as what? Cite some examples.

The examples above where you try to call into question the person's motives and falsely accuse them of being disruptive, that's just for starters. It's not the first time you've been warned for doing such things. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Warning Fnagaton 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a water-tight case. You've definitely got me there. Those links show very clear examples of me making personal attacks against other users, and are all very relevant to this deletion discussion. — Omegatron 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When was the last time you edited or showed any interest in either of these articles, by the way? — Omegatron 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another example of ad hominem. Fnagaton 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any edits made to either article where the sources could be correctly described as proper "reliable sources". Fnagaton 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources convince me this should stay. --JJay 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my comments on these sources above. --EMS | Talk 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • [13] --JJay 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Fails to meet WP:SCIENCE - That appears to be the same article as cited above. Personally, 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. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Tbeatty 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but keep it free from pro-HHO-gas and pro-Brown's-gas spam. This page may be to be non-notable as a page about gas science, but it is notable as a page about a hoax. The public needs to be warned about these hoaxes. Anthony Appleyard 05:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this article successfully represents the HHO manipulation. The Brown's Gas article successfully highlights that Brown's Gas is nothing more than common ducted Oxyhydrogen. Noah Seidman 02:20, 11 June 2007 (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.