Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas

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. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown's gas

User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Brown's gas.

• Keep Google gives 24,000 hits on "brown's gas, so it is notible. pstudier 23:45, 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)

• • KEEP this page--Brown's gas may or may not be Hokum, but it is worth having as a reference!--Itkastle 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: 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. In fact Brown's gas has much less scientific research and evidence than does HHO Gas, which had patents, scientific peer reviewed journals, and media coverage of it usage. This article on Brown's gas lacks sufficient information on wikipedia as per the same criteria used to delete the articles on HHO Gas/Aquygen. Since it is implied within the article on Brown's gas that it is based on false information or is lacking sufficient evidence, it would be entirely hypocritical to have deleted one article (HHO Gas and Aquygen) which had more cited sources for its existance, than to keep this article which has even less cited information for it not being a hoax. HHO Gas was confirmed as being used in schools and other welding applications, while I have not seen any information provided within this article on the actual use of Brown's gas. For example, no media coverage, press releases etc. Based on these reasons I have recommended that this article be deleted for uniformity, so there are no accusations of hypocracy. User:75.108.54.176

Reply Brown's gas is a historical entity, which means all news coverage of it happened over a century ago. it was and still is quite well known, and is somewhat notable for being a quack gas. I will agree, however, that the article does need tidying and rewording to make it clear that it is detailing a scientific falsehood of the past, now well debunked, as opposed to a current real gas. LinaMishima 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional Brown's gas appears to the educated observer to be the correct term for things like Aquygen and HHO. Surely as, I suspect, a supporter of Aquygen you would be in favour of this article? Being the more historic and well-known term (especially within the scientific and history of science community), this would be the appropriate place to detail such creations. LinaMishima 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I would like to address your concerns LinaMishima. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the information provided on this article. WP:HOAX As a historical entity, I would assume that such claims would have cited sources, yet there are none provided in the article. I dont think this is a well known or historic fact. To an educated observer like myself, your above point about Brown's gas being the correct term for HHO Gas/Aquygen only further supports the deletion of this article because as mentioned, HHO Gas was deleted on the belief that it was a hoax or scam, which alone would be a reason to endorse deletion of Brown's Gas. I think your statement misrepresents my intentions by insinuating that I am a supporter of HHO Gas or Aquygen. I simply want to ensure fairness and equality of treatment to such questionable articles, otherwise it will appear to educated observers that wikipedia's administrators and editors have an agenda of unfairness and hypocracy. And that is my primary concern with this and similar articles. User:75.108.54.176
    • As you should be aware, as the age of something increases, especially if it is from before the information revolution of the 1970's, the ease of finding good sources to cite increases. Searching on SwetsWise (an academic paper database), there are two results - a typical number for a matter of historical rather than current importance. WP:HOAX does not apply, as this article is not attempting to be a hoax. It is detailing historical work once thought to be true but now generally understood to not be. WP:HOAX would not, for example, apply to a page on, say, the moon landings conspiracy, as this details the hoax, rather than attempts to continue it. I agree that the article as stands is poorly written, but it is an issue of some note and merit. Rewording would be the prefered solution. LinaMishima 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Confused reading more carefully, I suspect that the pre-20th century gas I was thinking of was something different, but with an almost identical name. If I am able to work out what this is, I am likely to change my vote. If anyone has any ideas what it is I'm trying to recall, please use my talk page LinaMishima 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not real, but many people believe in it. —Keenan Pepper 04:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a well-referenced encyclopaedic article. I'm at a loss to figure out why anyone would delete it. WilyD 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. wikipediatrix 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Referencing in progress See User:LinaMishima\Brown's gas for what is currently a list of references, and will eventually become a rewrite of the article LinaMishima 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crap. -- Femmina 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Peer-reviewed References can be found at User:LinaMishima\Brown's gas. Current article could do with a rewrite, however, which is what I am working on. LinaMishima 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter if it is crap. It is notable, so we should keep it if only to debunk it. Just make sure the category pseudoscience or pseudophysics stays. Paul Studier 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is bogus science BUT this is why wiki maintains bad science, obsolete science, obsolete theroies, and pseudoscience categories. Do not sweep this sort of material under the carpet but deal with it, how can you discuss good science without examples of bad science? V8rik 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I did some research and didn't find much to note.. This is just as significant as an episode of Commander in Chief.. As far as I am concerned, even as a hoax, Brown's gas isn't even notable.. Name someone off the street who knows anything about Brown's gas.. They will probably tell you that they heard about that guys flatulence, but I doubt you will get them to tell you a thing about hydrogen.. And thats about all this article is, something which stinks to high heaven.. Also... WIKI isn't meant to "maintain bad science".. It is meant for the presentation of accurate factual information. If it is the case that Wikipedia is for "maintaining bad science", then I say bring back those supposed HHO Gas and Aquygen Articles, they had more evidence for their existance than does this article.. They were claimed as "bad science", just as this article is, but I dont see anyone trying to bring those articles back... Based on the related articles being deleted this Junk Science should not be on Wikipedia. This Article must go!

hypocracyonwiki 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hypocracyonwiki (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. LinaMishima 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That's funny, as I've found two papers on the issue in scientific journals. Although I suspect they are actually refering to Oxyhydrogen, that's not what the sources say, and assumptions cannot be made (WP:OR). LinaMishima 00:20, 12 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.