Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxyhydrogen flame

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxyhydrogen flame

User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Oxyhydrogen flame.

• Keep Why delete, this is just legitimate science. pstudier 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep I have reason to suspect the nomination for the deletion of these articles is related to the deletion of the Aquygen article. However, unlike that article, both Brown's gas and Oxyhydrogen flame have good merit:
  • Both are long standing terms from the pre-20th century science community - as such, they have strong historical value.
  • Oxyhydrogen flame is linked to by many articles - despite it's non-20th centruy name, it's a simple and very scientific concept - oxygen and hydrogen.
  • Brown's Gas is strongly related to the Oxyhydrogen flame.
  • Both recieve a large number of google hits, indicating some level of notability.
  • Brown's Gas is a good example of a now-debunked scientific theory, whilst Oxyhydrogen flame is real dispite sounding similar.
  • The presense of these aids us in dealing with or discussing psuedoscience akin to Aquygen

I'm cross posting the same vote on both AfDs, as I believe these nominations are intrinsically linked, and one cannot be discussed without the other. LinaMishima 23:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This article in conjunction with HHO Gas, Aquygen, and Brown's Gas represent information on a hypothetical gas which is created through electrolysis of water, however there is no evidence provided in this article on how the gas is created or if it even exists, there is simply no cited information provided other than the source coming from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which cannot be verified. Also this article has been identified as a stub, and has not been improved upon bringing this article to wikipedia standards. Please view the deletion discussion on Aquygen and HHO Gas for reference. Based upon the reasons both of those articles were deleted and subsequently Aquygen was permanantly deleted, and for the sake of looking like a hypocracy, this article should also be deleted based purely on the same criteria which was applied to Aquygen and HHO Gas. Oxyhydrogen Flame does not appear to have peer review scientific journals which support the existance and properties of the gas. Without the proper citations, this article lacks sufficient evidence, and based upon the relation to HHO Gas which was deleted per the (AfD), this article should be deleted, or there is the risk that it will appear hypocritical to delete one article and not all related articles. User:75.108.54.176

Dude. Oxygen + hydrogen + flame = oxyhydrogen flame. It's no more a "hypothetical" gas than any other two gases one could combine in a flame at the same time. wikipediatrix 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Are you denying that hydrogen burns? pstudier 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article Unlike brown's Gas and Aquygen, the Oxyhydrogen flame is nothing magical - it's meerly a dated term for the burning of hydrogen with oxygen. The article itself and those that link to it cite it's many uses over the years. LinaMishima 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. LinaMishima 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Rather than nominating a legitimate stub for deletion, why don't you expand upon it? --Porqin 11:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, the only criteria I could think of that are appropriate WilyD 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but damn, can't we get a better reference for this subject than the 1911 Britannica? wikipediatrix 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - don't mistake this for the pseudoscience, under "normal" science, electrolysing water produces a mix of H₂ and O₂ in 2:1 proportion, which will burn or explode. Ace of Risk 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep per LinaMishima's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep , the article is interlinked Oxyhydrogen. Mion 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) and merge Water torch into Oxyhydrogen flame, the other name for Oxyhydrogen flame is fire polishing. Mion 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (There are different names for use of the flame " on different temperatures" and the flame is created in various ways, in welding 2 tanks, in jewelry a small electrolysis installation, Mion 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm currently looking to rewrite a number of articles related to this subject, once the AfDs are over I shall look to merge or redirect as needed. LinaMishima 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or maybe speedy keep since there is no actual explanation for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply no explaination on the deletion because User:75.108.54.176 failed to complete the AfD process - meerly tagged the pages, rather than doing the next two needed steps. Draw from this what you will. LinaMishima 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was not able to produce an explaination and complete the AfD Process because of a flaw within Wikipedia which allows for one to put up a deletion AfD Tag, but does not allow for the creation of the discussion page unless one signs up for an account, which I choose not to do, so I wasn't able to give an explaination until someone else with an account created the discussion page. But now that it has been created, I would like to share with you why I nominated this page. I nominated the page because it was dealing a a subject of great scrutiny of late. HHO leads one to this page, and as I did my research on HHO Gas and Aquygen and Browns Gas I found that they were all interlinked which led to to believe that all the linked subjects must all relate to the Hoax which was claimed by many with regard to the HHO Gas. My impression was the an Oxyhydrogen Flame is the "water torch" flame produced by the burning of Brown's Gas or HHO Gas. Therefore per the discussion during the AfD process for the deletion of both Aquygen and HHO Gas, I assumed that it was appropriate to tag this article for lack of information in its source references. So if one can provide sufficient evidence for the article, I would be glad to change my vote. But as it stands I still feel that this article being a redirect for HHO is tied to HHO Gas and Brown's Gas and therefore represents false information per the discussion of HHO Gas being a hoax. User:75.108.54.176 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • From Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, Hydrogen has a clean flame and is good for use on aluminium. It can be used at a higher pressure than acetylene and is therefore useful for underwater welding and cutting. For small torches, the hydrogen and oxygen used are often produced by electrolysis of water in an apparatus which is connected directly to the torch. Do you deny that hydrogen burns??? Paul Studier 04:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is legit, articles without references comprise 90% of current Wiki, no reason for deletion. Also try google and find many legitimate uses of Oxyhydrogen flame V8rik 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment and indeed in this case we have references to oxyhydrogen flame, although they could be stronger. I'll make a note to do a journal search for the term. LinaMishima 15:48, 11 August 2006 (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.