Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPPP

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. moink 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DPPP

Summary: (this is to help me and other admins sort out this vote, please correct if I missed your vote).

• Delete: 11 (Russblau, Uncle G, Megan1967, Wetman, Scuriger, Radiant, Master Thief Garrett, Tobycat, Adun, Blank Verse, DO'Neil.
• Transwiki: 4 (Jeltz, Tuf-Kat, JIP, Xiong)
• Keep: 3 (Zaphood, Zscout, Zwilson).

Article when it was first nominated for deletion:[1] Compared to article now: [2]. Only major change is addition of chemical box.

Ok, that's enough info now. Consensus is to delete.

Delete The introduction to this page reads "Please note that this information is presented here in an attempt to stop it from exiting public domain. So from my local copy:" which strongly suggests a copyvio, but without any indication of the source. This is a recipe for concocting an explosive. If it is not a copyvio, then it would appear to be original research. In any event, it is not encyclopedic. RussBlau 15:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Don't delete, no copyright was reserved by the author and the whole scheme (I clearly remeber that no copyright was reserved) is based on german patent 1951660 which I will upload a copy shortly. Other similar but not as detailed writeups on explosive synthesis are abound, look at the article acetone peroxide under explosive materials. Allso all the originals are gone from www.sciforums.com And I feel that this is important knowlidge that should be conserved. Sort of like an algorithm for sorting out problems post haste. Image:Foron2.gif Zaphood 16:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken in that one never needs to 'reserve' copyright in order for it to apply. Radiant_* 11:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Transkwiki, shouldn't howtos and recipes be in wikibooks? Jeltz talk 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks Tuf-Kat 16:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain KeepThis is encyclopedic, but I might add that attempting to make organic peroxides is extremely dangerious. The article needs to be cleaned up, though. I'd like to see the synthesis instructions rewriteen to be a bit more serious though. Klonimus 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. It's a how-to. It's not an encyclopaedia article about diphorone pentaperoxide. Uncle G 23:58, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
    • True! It's not an encyclopedic article about DPPP it an encyclopedic article about the synthesis of DPPP, or does it need more scope? It's all there! Zaphood 13:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. It's a how-to. It's not an encyclopaedia article about synthesis. It's a recipe, plain and simple. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Wikipedia articles are not source material. Nor is Wikipedia a means for ensuring that knowledge does not become lost. If Zaphood doesn't want knowledge to be lost, xe should publish xyr "local copy" on xyr own web-site. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. Moreover, the claim that Wikipedia has a similar detailed writeup for the synthesis of acetone peroxide is simply false, as reading that article will attest. This is not an encyclopaedia article. Moreover, don't burden the transwiki system with this when the original author and sole editor is clearly around, and should be encouraged to publish the article in the correct place xemself, directly. Delete. Uncle G 23:58, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Well Nobody has asked for your opinion. Your vote maybe but your drivel about xat and ur is tiresome at best to read. Nobody is begging you to transwiki anything or to even exist. Yes, my world would be a slightly better place without you uncle g, and it eludes me why you took an extended interest in the first place. If you feel your connection with wiki a burden, you are doing the wrong thing with your time, I can only wish that you find a more soothing task to preoccupy your time.Zaphood
• Comment: I don't think that Wikipedia should become a repository for explosive-making recipes if only because it would open up legal issues in many countries, especially in relation to anti-terrorism laws. If someone is interested in the patent, then there are a number of patent libraries on the internet. SteveW | Talk 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The original authour seems interested in nothing other that keeping explosives information availible to the public (possiblly against legal threats i'm not sure) by using our rescources. I DO NOT oppose us having an article on this substance if it has sufficiant signficance. I do oppose us having bomb making instructions here for no good reason. 01:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. Megan1967 03:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have something against keeping explosive information in the public know? Why is that? Ever heard the phrase 'if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have them' It has certaint connections to this here. I'm explicitly saying that knowlidge about explosives is vital to anybody who has contact in some form of the other to them. Be it professional, hobby or michevious. I truely believe in the freedom of information, the freedom to learn and know. There are no boundries and no exclusions to this, be it how suspicious or otherwise. And no, I have not recieved any cease and desist letters, I have just noticed as an avid collector of high energy information that this particular gem was exiting the 'know' at lim. lightspeed. And kind of went 'wow this should be accessible to all, it's right down and dirty brilliant knowlidge' wikipedia was a kind of a natural continuation of that thought process. Information in itself is as far as I know legal. What would constitute as a good reason for having bomb making instructions. Well, the need for a bomb obviously. But it's a different thing to say 'here's how to make DPPP' than it is to say 'Psst! take this bomb and kill someone' See my point? There are articles of all kinds of things.. Poisons for example, Just doing an article on deadly nightshade (orsth.) does not imply 'here's the vial, slip it into his lordship's wine before dinner' NPOV. Zaphood 13:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If you have not received any letters, what is the reason for your apparent unwillingness to publish your own article on your own web site? Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete if a private hosting place can be found, otherwise Transwiki to Wikibooks. — JIP | Talk 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic. --Wetman 05:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete. -- Securiger 10:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Radiant_* 11:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, what we have here is a failure to communicate (maily mine) I see your points and will try and make a sort of a forward escape.
• Zeroth point: cake muffin <- compare
  • I suggest that you do exactly that. cake is not a how-to, a recipe for making cakes akin to this recipe for making diphorone pentaperoxide, but is an encyclopaedia article about cakes. The recipes for cake are, of course on Wikibooks, in the Wikibooks:Cookbook, in the section containing cake recipes. I suspect that you noticed this, since you came back later and added muffin. Part of that article, too, is a recipe that doesn't belong in the encylopaedia, but in

• Yes one can do thease magical things here in wikipedia, like add stuff to other stuff, Did you discover this by my example ? Well then, consider the wage naught, and I see you went straight away and effected this newly-found ability (it is called editing, now say with me ee-di-ting) to add the 'transfer to the recpie wiki' (orsth) stub to muffin and then had the ultimate grace to come and whine about it on my goddamn VfD? what's up uncle G ? didn't sleep well ? on crack ?Zaphood

the section of the cookbook containing muffin recipes, and it is tagged as such. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• But wasn't till i pointed it out to you Zaphood
• First, I feel that transwiki would be the smart thing to do. There are allready synthesis for thermite and cyclonite under chemistry there. But I really feel that I do not have the competence to write a textbook or a manual on synthesis or any subgategory thereof. I just happen to have first hand knowlidge that this synthesis works and has been sort of a status quo way of obtaining DPPP.
  • Transwiki would be the lazy thing to do. Please stop attempting to burden other editors with a complex transwikification task when you, as the original author, are right here, apparently perfectly capable of submitting text to a wiki, and can submit your own original article yourself. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Please accept this uncle g I would consider it an insult if you were to transwiki anything of mine. I trust your ability not and even you dount your resolve and energyZaphood

• Second (not a hosting service): Point 2 states that material not used in a encyclopedic article are bad. Well I looked up encyclopedic and I really can't see the basis on which you state that this wiki entry does not have the qualities. It is educational, it is how should I put this, part of the circle of learning if you are looking for information on organic peroxides. All the uploaded pictures are used and the patent is on this VfD page, so I'm not hosting bull per se.
  • It's a how-to, a recipe indeed, not an encyclopaedia article, as explained. The articles at Wikibooks, such as the cocktail mixing instructions in the Bartending book, are "educational", too (intentionally so, indeed, as part of Wikibooks' remit to hold "instructional materials"). But they aren't encyclopaedia articles either. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Article being trivial: Well DPPP is considered the 'holy grail' of organic peroxides. It outstands in many ways compared to other 'easy' synthesis of similar material. First of all it's safe compared to the others, It's not too sensitive if stored right and is probably the fastest explosive around outrunning C4, TNT, RDX and just about anything except a few exotic compounds that have no use except as curios.
• The copyright again. I'm saying it is in the public domain. If the original author who worded the synthesis came around he would not mind at all. And if he did I find it strange considering that this was released on the sciforums forum and discussed there extensivly untill someone desided it's too simple and too effective to be let sit where anyone can learn it.
• Hosting it on my webserv: Well how would that help someone relying on wikipedia for knowlidge. I can't very well put a link to my homepage on wikipedia now can I ? wikipedia is not a linkfarm (pun)
  • Wikipedia is not the only way to publish stuff. Funnily enough, the World Wide Web contains more than just Wikipedia. It also contains your own web site, just as it contains my web sites, where I publish knowledge that I don't want to be lost. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Yeah uncle g spare me the rethoric, I'm not like you and you do what you see best, I do what I see best but I really could not care less about your practices uncle g.Zaphood
• Legal issues other than copyright: I know it's a bum having your twin towers blown up but frankly, this has nothing to do with that or the laws that followed. If some country want's to orwellianalize the world, that's the shortcoming of the people who let that goverment do that, not the fault of the internet, not the fault of free information exchange, not the fault of learning interesting stuff and certainly not the fault of my finnish ass. Fine your homeland security act says that your MiB's can come here and put a slug in my head (read it it really gives the right to go on foregin soil and kill 'terrorists' (ie. anybody who is not playing on team america) without scrutiny) But after me, someone is bound to find this or similar in a book, and think 'wow this is great, why isn't it in the f*cking encyclopedia' Well if all the books aren't burnt and his emotion controll chip let's him have emotions such as 'wow'
  • Assuming that all Wikipedians are United States citizens isn't going to convince people that your arguments have merit. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Well I used the term 'your' in the sence that they weren't MINE. Tell me uncle g where are you from?

I'd bet a cup of stale coffe and a napkin you are from U.S. or her former colonial master the brits, which pretty much merits 'scum of the earth' in my book but what have you..?Zaphood

• Bomb making instructions: There isn't a way around this 'm afraid. If you put yeast and sugar in water, put that in a bottle and close the cap, what do you have? An improvised explosive device with a built in timer. It's all in the perspective, I think NPOV states that you should not assume that something is used for bad, when valid causes can easily be found. That pesky tree stump in the field, the warm fuzzy feeling of having a couple of kilos of high explosives under the bed, that painfull tooth, etc... And if your 12yr old son without your knowlidge should want to make explosives, which would you choose: Poor info that ends your kid in a grave OR Good info that keeps him safe ? Think about it.. Because of good info I still can type (a mishap with ammonia and iodine, but i was lucky because I knew it's gonna make a bang, just had no proportion, but I was afraid of the stuff and that's because of good info and that's what saved my fingers)
• The patent: This synthesis is superior to the patent 1) It has pictures 2)German patents are only accessible to german speaking people 3)If you are looking for information on ketchup, would you rather a)google the recepie b)work on a tomato farm ? I'm willing to bet a pack of cigarettes that you can't find this german patent because of a) you are lazy enough to weigh a pack of cigarettes lower than a trip to the public (patent) library b) You need a german patent library. (will send 1 pack of ciggies upon proof of discovery and a mailing address, offer valid if I have a spare pack of ciggies) Zaphood 13:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's amusing that you choose ketchup recipes as an example, when the Wikibooks:Cookbook has a section for sauce recipes, too. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Well that was exactly not the point i were trying to demonstrate, but close. The point is that there are easy ways of doing things and hard ways. And i am trying to facilitate a easy way for people who have the interest, to find out about this particular organic peroxide. Zaphood
• Delete, non-encyclopedic. And, if anything, someone who can read German will blow themselves up or something crazy like that. And we don't want a lawsuit on our hands. Although no doubt many Wikipedians are lawyers, that doesn't mean we'd win... Master Thief Garrett 21:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Wikipedia should not have bomb recipies listed as articles, even moreso if they are non encyclapedic, I really hope this is deleted as Wikipedia could get in a lot of legal trouble for this.Deathawk 03:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:193.229.219.152 is vandalising other people's votes and comments. — JIP | Talk 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was most certaintly not vandalizing anything. I just choose to format my comment a bit differentlty. I used one vote which I Bolded and learn to use the diff button if something is unclear. I did not change anyone's vote. What I did was Editing boldly, not vandalizing anything. please stand corrected. My vote is still keep And I'm sorry if you find my honest and pointy commentary too much 193.229.219.152 12:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And you don't call this vandalism?
      *Delete Execllent work. Plese don't delete if a private hosting place can be found, otherwise Transwiki to Wikibooks. — JIP | Talk 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      You inserted the words "Execllent work. Plese don't delete" [sic] in the middle of my vote, making it look like I voted "please don't delete if a private hosting place can be found". That sure meets my criteria for vandalism. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well. I figured that in the spirit of wiki, only the bolded part is the actual vote and the rest is just commentary. And since I signed in the middle of the whole discussion I thought that just maybe if someone get's confused on what is actually happening they would diff the 'suspect'
        But, I am really sorry if anyone thought that I was JIP or anyone else I inserted something into. Like the 'why' after someones commentless DELvote
        pardon JIP, others. 193.229.219.152 12:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the explanation, I can live with that. But please, next time write your comments underneath the text, not in the middle of it, to make it stand out from others' work. — JIP | Talk 13:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • nono, that was me, sorry I accidentally logged out before saving the page. Master Thief Garrett 06:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)Nope, I'm wrong again, that was a different page where I was logged out. Master Thief Garrett 06:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought it was weird when you said it was you, as the anonymous user's editing style is different from yours, and you voted "delete" when the anonymous user wrote supportive comments. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and cleanup. I personally think a chemical like this will stay, since we have other chemicals. Though, the way this is set up, it is more of a how-to instead of knowledge. Wikibooks is more of a how-to type area. As for the legal things, if we can have detailed information about a GLOCK, I am sure we can keep this somewhere on Wikimedia servers. However, if people really think this should be hosted on a private server, I will try to host it on mine or I will clean up the article at my home, work and school. Science is not my best subject, but let's see what I can do to this. Zscout370 (talk) 02:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I will have a go at making the synthesis more formal.

1. Charge a 600ml flask with 200mL 35% HCL and 200 mL Reagent Acetone in a cooled vessel.

   Heat under reflux for 3hr at 50*C.

   When swirled around the beaker, it the solution should leave an orange glaze on the glass.

(Colors will follow this pattern: Clear, light yellow, orange, dark orange, wine red, black-orange, and black-red.)

1. Allow the mixture to cool to room temperature, and wait 10-12hr to allow any unreacted acetone to evaporate

   Place the room tempearture mixture in a cold freezer (-10*C) to precipitate the Phorone DiHydrogen Chloride.

   Chill 250 Ml of 35% H2O2 in a refigerator. Do not allow to freeze, as this can result in the formation of unstable reagions of superconcentrated H2O2.

   Prepare a salt-ice bath, and transfer the Phorone DiHydrogen Chloride solution to a beaker in the Ice Bath.. Add 5 mL of chilled H2O2 at a time to the flask with the phorone DiHCL. This is an exothermic reaction. Do not let the reaction temperature rise above 5*C or the reactancts may start to decompose in a violent explosion.

   After all the H2O2 has been added, allow the mixture react in a freezer for 5 hrs.

   When the reaction is complete, there will be a pasty lemon yellow precipitate.

   Decant and collect the precipiate.

   Wash the precipiated with Sodium Bicarbonate solution, and rinse with deionized water.

• • I say it again, with my hat on as one of the people who transwikifies articles: Don't burden the transwiki system with this when the original author is clearly around right now, and should be encouraged to publish the article in the correct place xemself, directly, right now. Wikibooks is a wiki. Anyone who can (demonstrably) write an article here can write the same article there. Putting this through the transwiki system is burdening other editors such as me with a lot of complex edits; whereas it's very simple for the original author to submit the original article directly. As one of the editors who shoulders that burden, I object to it being placed upon me in completely unnecessary situations such as this one. Uncle G 16:45, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. potentially dangerous...can a neutral party (a chemist) validate that this 'recipe' is even correct and that the instructions won't result in someone blowing their arm off or passing out from fumes? This is high risk content if we leave it in. Tobycat 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about that reaction but nothing stands out as a real no no (other than the product). I mean sure I would only do this in a fume cuboard. Persoanly I suspect anyone caperble of produceing a decent yield from that reaction is going to be a good enough chemist not to be relying on wikipeidia for thier recipies.Geni 21:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I really dont like the idea of mixing 35% H2O2 with anything organic. It's an excellent way to create an explosion. Acetone peroxides are just plain unsafe. Klonimus 03:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Well yes, it releases some chlorine fumes. In this scale hardly enough to 'choke' someone but I have intimate knowlidge about this synthesis and the once wide discussions about it on chemistry webforums. But dangerous fumes do occur. This is covered by the risk disclaimer. As for the blowing arms off: It is not all that sensitive while wet of either acetone or water, nor does it explode if the synthesis is followed and temperatures in excess of boiling are not allowed to happen in the cool bit of the synthesis, even so I doubt it very much it would actually explode, just spoil the process. Well in thease levels of confinement and scale. And yes, some rephrasing would be in order for it to remain in the actual cyclopedic part of wiki. As for the legal entanglements, I very much doubt that anyone outside the brainwash scheme of the media actually doubts terrorists ability to get hold of high explosives. So for the rest of the world it's just information like any other. I really have to wonder why goverments should be to only ones with the ability to release joule in a short period. After all commoners like everybody actually do the inventing. The know how should not escape the public know. I agree with Zaphood, wont vote again, but i will say again: keep.193.229.219.152 22:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, Delete, unless validated. Adun 23:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I just want due process, and at the end of that process if the admin desides the article has to go, i would like the opportunity to transwiki it myself. And please be noted that I will try to pursue all avenues availiable to keep this article in wikipedia where it belongs IMHO. Such as the undelete route. AND why is the risk disclaimer taken off (by uncle G again I suspect) I feel that it was in the right place there. I would very much like to see it re-instated. And yet another thing, why is the phorone patent under copyvio flags (by uncle G again)? It's so much bullshit uncle g, your opinion is clear, I request that you voluntarily stay away from anything that could be considered 'works' of mine. just because I don't like you and I'm willing to ask you to quit getting on my case voluntarily. I feel that wikipedia is not a mud wrestling pit

Zaphood 12:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not encyclopedic, needs validation, possibly dangerous, possible copyright violation....--62.253.128.13 21:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Dear 62,253.128.13 please see guns drugs rock and roll and for the possibly dangerous bit please see knifeZaphood 14:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the numerous reasons listed above. Also, from a quick check on the internet, this looks to be a fairly powerful explosive that can be created from easily obtainable ingredients. I would suggest that an admin blank the page and then protect it while this vote is going on. If someone want to create an article about the substance, but NOT the making of it, then they should do it at diphorone pentaperoxide or diphoronepentaperoxide. BlankVerse ∅ 02:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's unencyclopædic (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook), and there are too many potential legal entanglements. DO'Иeil 07:39, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• C4 explosive 265 words vs. DPPP 302 words (with pictures and the Votes for Deletion Template) Should they both be here then? as far as encyclopedidness goes.. or shelf life???.193.229.219.152 23:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that, as Blank Verse said, any crackpot with a credit card can acquire the ingredients for DPPP, whereas C4 is more "refined". It's a plastic explosive, you can't just brew that stuff up with zero training and a garden shed. Sure someone could in theory collect its ingredients and work out how to make it, but if they really wanna make something that goes boom there are much easier ways. And THIS is one of them! Master Thief Garrett 00:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep phat phaggots

Abstain I feel the need to put in my two cents worth; May I draw your attention to the exhaustive (but still amateur) discussion of diPhoro-Penta-peroxide on the sciencemadness.org pages: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=179 . You have to remember that many of the members there have no formal chemical education (and although many do, including myself, there is a lot of dilly-dallying). A few things become clear during the long discussion; After three native German speakers with formal chemical educations examined the patent, in addition to the review of literal and non-literal translations into English: it was determined that the patent is very vague on the process, and key steps and methods are [opinion: deliberately] omitted. Basically, the patent does not provide a formal method of synthesis.

The synthesis here is also very unscientific, irresponsible and possibly a copy violation. That being said, I would like to change the article so it can be kept. From a chemistry major, this kind of thing is pretty interesting [strange to you probably!] I am suggesting collaboration between aforementioned proper scientists and Wiki to create an encyclopaedic article, with as little reference to synthesis as possible. Would you all be prepared to keep the article if it were changed from a backyard syth. page to an article discussing the actual compound? Keeping in mind that all information was researched independently, and often factually verified by many people at university facilities - if you were worrying about verisimilitude.

Sincerely ‘Ramiel’, sciencemadness.org moderator, Chemistry Major.

post sans Master Thief Garret: Unless performed correctly (and I will reiterate that this is not a correct method for the preparation of pure DPPP) the synthesis will only result in acetone peroxide. To actually produce DPPP you need a proper understanding of some fairly advanced laboratory method, some expensive glassware, or failing those two – the ability to buy in restricted chemicals. Please don’t shoot your mouth off ;) Furthermore, a number of lead block tests for sensitivity have been independently performed on pure DPPP, and found that it has a surprisingly high tolerance to shock when compared to other complex organic peroxides... just so you know.

Definetly needs to go to wikibooks see wikibooks:Chemical synthesis:Cyclonite synthesisGeni 01:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wikibooks, yes. Once it is there, it is the concern of the Wikibooksians. (Purely as a side note, I agree that such information needs to be preserved, but then I come from the land of the Second Amendment.) — Xiong熊talk*

Keep but edit to make this a proper encyclopedia article about the compound, and move the instructions to Wikibooks. Zwilson 18:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.