Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was delete. Many of the keep votes were arguing for the existence of this substance, not for the inclusion of this page. This is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for it. Others were referring to an article other than this one--a hypothetical debunking. Others were revotes or anonymous. All told, consensus appears to be for deletion. Chick Bowen 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown's gas

  • Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas
  • Main reason to delete for: No reliable, third party sources
    • Yes, the search gets many Google hits, but nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. Blogs, forums, post your own press release sites, ...
  • Auxiliary deletion arguments:
    • Previous AfD closing failed to weigth the arguments
    • Continuing confusion with plain vanilla Oxyhydrogen and Oxyhydrogen flame
    • Article may be keepable if It's not real, but many people believe in it can be sourced, but I don't see valid sources for it. The postings on the web can be done by 3, 30 or 3000 people, who knows?
  • Rants
    • I'm sick and tired of reverting this into a semi-sane state. First of all, the persistent Brown's-gas-fans should decide for themselves, whether it has spectacutar properties different from oxyhydrogen:
      • (a) Same properties: No need for separate article, short mentioning of rare synonym with strange connotations at Oxyhydrogen
      • (b) Miraculous properties (e.g. The quantity of hydrogen and oxygen atoms produced is in accordance with traditional electrolytic theory, although the volume is not, or Transmutation of Radioactive Materials, or creates ten times more Brown's gas than normal electrolysis systems do): Pack your Brown's gas generator, give the next major university's chemistry department a visit and receive your Nobel prize soon.

Pjacobi 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Might be a hoax, but if it is it's an extremely well-known and widely-discussed one. Google found 100 Books results for "Brown's Gas" (in quotes) and magazine/newspaper mentions includinf this Wired story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- all but two books don't refer to Yull Brown's alleged invention. As both "Brown" and "gas" are rather common words, there are a lot of misleading results. --Pjacobi 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources. Tengfred 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent sources to show it is scientifically valid, and not enough mainstream references to show it is a notable hoax or notable pseudoscience, so delete and block recreation to prevent the Wikipedia article being used for promotion. Edison 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is my belief that both the unusual properties and the claim of energy generation are false. However, I have seen many references to Brown's Gas so Wikipedia should have an article about it. Paul Studier 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Google hits are not a reliable determinant of notability. Without a single reliable source it doesn't matter if Wikipedia should have an article-- Wikipedia CAN'T have an article about this subject. Period. OfficeGirl 01:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Edison; deja vu all over again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even hoaxes need to be properly referenced. (Otherwise we risk the danger of meta-hoaxes.) Demiurge 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have corrected the article to contain real scientific information in additional to prevailing stereotypes. Its a shame that more scientists are not available to add to my inclusions. I will continue to update this article as my research, and understand of the phenomena evolves. I am a first party source that is involved with Brown's Gas on a college level, if you have any scientific questions contact me at (646) 296 - 5385, or email me at admin@waterfuelconverters.com. This article is important to keep, and I am confident that more first party sources will show themselves eventually to add to my inclusions.
  • KeepOk, I understand, but the claims that are scientifically verified are not biased, are objective, and are rational. They are not my opinion, they are verifiable facts. If you feel that my first person status is interfering, and establishing bias, please change the format, and the sentence structure. There is no reason to remove pure scientific facts, please only remove any unintentially included bias. I am trying extremely hard not be be biased as this article, and the topic of Brown's Gas, greatly deserves the best representation possible. If no-one knows anything about Brown's Gas only a primary source has information that has to be passed on to secondary sources. Please bare with me, and lets work together to fix this article and give Brown's Gas the unbiased representation it deserves.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.218.207 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia 24.193.218.207! Please be aware that your contributions may violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and most likely also Wikipedia:Verifiability. BTE: An encyclopedia, as a tertiary source prefers secondary sources over primary sources. --Pjacobi 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the "verifiability policy" it clearly says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", and Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. ". I feel that I am within the guidelines of the "verifiability policy". Please talk with me if you feel otherwise, and I guarantee that I will work with you to maintain the utmost credibility, reliability, and integrity of Wikipedia's policies.

Comment I see no evidence of a "well-known professional researcher" in these self-published sources. Moreover, you left out " These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." I see nothing to indicate that this is true here.
The points about using self-published sources in articles about the author(s) clearly does not apply here, since this article is not about any author; it's about a gas. Tengfred 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article no longer lacks reliable resources. Note that I have added many items in the "references section". The Korean manufacturer in particular is a company filled with Phd's and reliable resources, and while their English is not optimal they are capable of getting their points across. Please refer to these "references" prior to considering this article for deletion. These companies substantiate all the properties of Brown's Gas that are now posted. I have also added in text citations to help better substantiate the claims in this article. One addition that must be made is a citation for the "perpetual motion" claim. Now that a reference section has been added, it is only right to show the reference for such an obsurd claim. Note that all the companies in the references section don't even adress the notion of perpetual motion because it is truly something that should not even be considered; the term obsurd is overwhelmingly appropriate.

Nseidm1 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • keep as per Nseidm1 comments LazyDaisy 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: [1] -19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & Debunkify - this is a well known and well documented fraud. Including it in Wikipedia with its colorful history and well documented debunking should prove very useful. It's already listed (but not linked) in History of perpetual motion machines. Rklawton 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep it is well known PTIuv777 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment:' Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LazyDaisy. --Pjacobi 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crankiness is not inherently notable. WMMartin 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment:' Crankiness is an inherent repercussion of a bad nights sleep and/or constipation. --Nseidm1 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Pjacobi you should listen to Nseidm1 and give up on your conspiracy theories.PTIuv777 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still se no reliable sources in the article. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources says "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." Also, the section on physics articles in the same page, points out the importance of using peer-reviewed scientific publications. As far as I can tell, there are no such sources in the article. Right now, the article is a mess of controversial claims, with almost no inline citations and a pile of obviously biased sources. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources again: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". It is possible that a coherent article can be written per Rklawton, and if so, that article might be useful. As the situation is right now though, I still support Delete. Tengfred 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment There will never be exceptional evidence for using Brown's Gas in an over-unity fashion because it is impossible; I have addresses this bogus claim with the "note". I would remove this blatentlt erronious claim due to its impossiblity, but it is crucial to document all prevailing stereotypes about a scientifically straight forward technology. As for the "semi-rational" claims, these are not totally outragoues. These claims are reasonable, and highly substantiated by the videos sections where users can observe the claims first hand; Brown's Gas can be visually seen behaving in a novel fashion as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen or a pure Hydrogen flame. Also, the reliable sources policy says "take caution", it dousn't say that the references cannot cannot be used because they are company websites. Also, the fact that multiple website, and multiple companies exists across the planet establishes a greater level of credibility as compared to if only one website or only one company was listed. Please note that I have clearly distinguished and defined Brown's Gas production as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen production and pure Hydrogen production; the method is obviously novel. Nseidm1 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes the claims might be exceptional, which is why I have placed them in sections title "over-unity claims", and "semi-rational" claims. The section "properties" is a section that is based on measurable phenomena. Such a section its not biased, as they are intuitive and rational inclusions based on observable and measurable properties, hence why the section name is "properties". It's ok for a topic to be controversial, and have controversional claims, the reason this article is now informative and un-biased in because the claims that are controversial are marked as such. The main reason this article should remain is because I have specifically clarified the exact difference in how to produce Brown's Gas as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen and pure Hydrogen. The difference is clear and distinction is well defined. Brown's Gas is clearly a separate phenonema as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen and pure Hydrogen; the unique production method dictates so. I still support Keep. Nseidm1 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Note that the Oxy-Hydrogen article does not have any references other than another third party source. Even considering such a lack of references the article remains. The point is that an article does not have to have an overwhelming amount of references to still be considered a credible article. I would argue that the most important aspect of a credible article is how rational and how objective the text is. In the case of this article, there are many points of view considered, and the text specifically considers the dubiousness of the claims. This article is objective, rational, and references real companies that are researching, patenting, and marketing common ducted electrolytic technologies. Nseidm1 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lets close this deletion debate. This article has come a long way. Noah Seidman 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - since this is a "chemistry" or "physics" related article, then we should use only university sources. If we remove non-university sources from the article, you'll see the article is still un-sourced. Rklawton 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may be an article to write here, since this is regrettably a popular canard/investment scan, but what is here isn't it. The extra energy observed comes from one of the electrodes that is getting dissolved in the process. But how does one go about finding acceptable sources for this crap? Dr Zak 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - acceptable sources... Google "Brown's gas" and "fraud" - and you'll find tons of sources. It'll certainly help debunkify this article. Rklawton 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • What is here right now is a heap of unreferenced stuff bordering on advertising, nothing salvageable here, everybody move right along. Why not redirect to water fuel cell, which is a proper article on the same subject? Dr Zak 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Support - redirect per Dr Zak. It's a good temporary fix 'till someone wants to write up a good article detailing this particular scam. It's got quite a history. Rklawton 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & above Vsmith 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but Stubify for rebuilding as a pseudoscience debunking References supporting this amazing scientific discovery aren't convincing. Seems to be enough out there for a pseudoscience debunking article though Bwithh 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Brown's Gas Hoax and stubbify --BostonMA talk 23:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is now clearly in compliance with Wikipedias deletion policy and therefore should remain. As for the tone of the article, I agree that others should be participating and contributing to establish better compliance. The lack of contribution, especially on the part of all that want this article deleted, highligh the opinionated bias and unsubstantial reasoning used in attacking clearly established credibility. Noah Seidman 05:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You have already voted twice on this page... --Daggerstab 09:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Additional Comments Administrator please take note. The reference of "hoax" and "fraud" are mere terminologies and are not inherently substantive. Individuals that utilize these terms do not make any citations and they have no substantiation for their claim other than their own opinion. Opinions are not enough of a reason to discredit the novelty of a phenomena that is clearly distinct from Oxy-Hydrogen; the distinction has been defined specifically within the text of the article; Brown's Gas is clearly produced in a novel fashion as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen, and pure Hydrogen for that matter. The attacks on rational statements, that are obviously logical, are inconsistent with the substantiation required to discredit the phenomena of Brown's Gas. Please also note that the BEST Korea Company and Arizona Hydrogen Company, both cited in the references section, are multi million dollar companies that have overwhelmingly mainstream clients. Arizona Hydrogen Company sells products to NASA, Ratheon, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, GE and Motorola. BEST Korea Company is laying the foundation for fuel consumption on the Korean peninsula as the distribtuion of liquid fuels is impractical as compared to on-site generation. Noah Seidman 14:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You mention that Arizona Hydrogen Company sells products to NASA, Raytheon, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, GE and Motarola. Could you provide a citation where any of these companies, including Arizona Hydrogen Company make any claim about the existence of Brown's gas? --BostonMA talk 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In this edit, Nseidm1, states that Arizona Hydrogen Company does not produce "Brown's gas". [2]. Odd he should use them as a mainstream reference, since even he agrees they have nothing to do with Brown's gas. Rklawton 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the above, the Brown's gas folk say that generators made by Arizona HydroGen produce Brown's gas, even though Arizona HydroGen says nothing of the sort. --BostonMA talk 22:35, 24 November 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.