Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/HHO gas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Moved from AfD page

The erroneous motivation for the deletion of this page was to prevent potential investors/victims of Denny Klein from using wikipedia to discover what his product was really all about. Wikipedia is a source many people use to find information that debunks thing's like Brown's gas, Uri Geller, Perpetual Motion devices, etc. If such pages are being removed it generally means someone is investing time to make sure people do not know of such hoaxes. Meaning the article serves a useful purpose as it points out the lack of scientific credibility to people who might be considering sending this joker a check. Articles about crap like bigfoot and coldfusion are allowed on wikipedia. A hoax article is when the actual article has no basis outside of the article itself and was just made up. That isn't the case with this article. Majestic Lizard 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to explain in detail why this article is not a candidate for deletion under articles of deletion.

According to the Official Wikipedia Deletion Policy: These are the Reasons listed for Problem articles where deletion may be needed on the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy page. I will explain why this article does not meet these criteria.

Reasons listed for Problem articles where deletion may be needed

Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT): (SEE BELOW SECTION EXPLAINING ALL REASONS FOR BEING SUITABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA)

Original research (including the coining of neologisms) - but if it's a source text, it should be moved to Wikisource (see below).

The article is not original research. It has multiple verifiable outside sources including US Government agencies and Nobel Prize Nominated Scientists. Which does not meet the criteria for deletion. (SEE BELOW SECTION)

Vanity page

The article does not meet the criteria as a vanity page. Which does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Advertising or other spam

The article is not advertising or spam as it is an objective article on the scientific nature and controversy surrounding HHO Gas. Therefore doesnt meet the criteria for deletion.

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

All material in the article in on topic, therefore it doesn't meet this criteria for deletion. Italic text Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:

WP:MUSIC (for bands) Does not apply Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion. WP:BIO (for biographies) Does not apply Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion. WP:FICT (for fictional characters) Does not Apply Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases.

Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem. The article was not written in the project Wikipedia pages, therefore cannot be an inappropriate page. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Article is possible copyright infringement

Article is not copyright infringement because the article does not copy material directly from cited sources, nor does it infringe on any copyright protections. The article was written objectivly by consulting information from the cited sources of information. Therefore the article does not meet the criteria for deletion.

A redundant or misguided stub template or category.

The article does not have an original page, which means that it is not redundant. The article was not a stub until it was reverted back to its original form. The expanded and full article was not a stub. As it had clearly described to the best of its ability the complicated nature of HHO Gas. This mean that it does not meet this criteria for deletion.

Article is a source text (but not a copyvio) Does not apply. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Article is a hoax (not an article about a hoax) This article is clearly not a hoax. The information gathered was from verified and credible sources, including US Government agencies, US Major News Networks, Science Journals, Nobel Prize Nominated Scientists, as well as the direct company responible for the creation of HHO Gas. These sources are cited in the original article. All sources are listed from which you can obtain all information about HHO Gas. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Article is a candidate for speedy deletion including:

Patent nonsense (total gibberish) The article is not "total gibberish". It is a clearly and concisely written article. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Pages created just to vandalize or disrupt

The article is not vandalism nor is its intent to create or perpetuate a disruption. (See Above Comments for explaination of what this article covers) Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia: No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites.

This was done. All the research for this was published in the peer review journal "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy". None of the information was taken from my own person ideas, terms, or primary research. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.

This was clearly done, as I have cited all outside sources, and maintained that the material is verified through outside sources including the media and various government agencies. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!

This article was created from several years of development from prior to 2004. Therefore it is not new. It is also not an original invention, it has secondary and third sources that have reported on it. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.

This is not a critical review of artwork. It is an article on the science and news of a relatively new technology which has been verified from multiple sources (see above). Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

This is not a personal essay or blog. This is not an opinion article. It is a report of the factual science of HHO Gas as it is currently understood. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

Again this article is based on the most accurate science known to date. It is not intended to become obsolite, but to be added upon. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.

There is not a discussion on the article page so the above said reason is not valid. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

While the information gathered is a secondary source from the News media, it does not contain its primary information from the News Media, but from both the developers of the HHO Gas and from scientific journals describing the gas. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

This article is not propaganda, nor advertising, it is a statement of the known facts of a relatively new form of gas formed from water molecules into a hybrid hydrogen oxygen gas. The article is factually based as the science is currently known. There is the existance of a gas which contains Hydrogen in Oxygen in a unique combination which is going through testing to determine its exact nature. There is no question that this is a real gas, as it has been verified through government agencies, and scientific research. There are real questions about the gas and its properties because science has not discovered this gas in nature, but science has created many molecules and atoms that have not been created by natural causes, so this alone does not give credit to those who believe that the gas is not a Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen Gas. Regardless of that controversy this article deserves to be placed on wikipedia for others to find relevant information about the gas and its controversy. There was much controversy when it was said that the world was not flat or that the earth revolved around the sun, we now know that as scientific fact. We now know that e=mc2 which was not accepted by scientists overnight either. It was once thought that atomic bombs were science fiction, we know that it is science fact. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable.

Does not apply as I am not involved with the project in any way. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.

The product described is acceptable because it is written in an objective and unbiased style. And all information is verifiable. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

As I have stated before, and for the reasons listed above, this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. Therefore I believe that this article should have no objectives to the Official Wikipedia Policy, and therefore if such a move is made to delete this article on HHO Gas, that this constitutes and unjust deletion, which is being used as personal intimidation, based not on solid policy but on personal disagreement with the subject material of the article. That is not sound reason for justifying the deletion of a serious article on an important and relevent topic. Thank you, boyohio02 18:00 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy

I don't understand why the page could not just be changed to say this is a hoax and give information on it? Having no page at all is crazy.. i can't find any information on this supposed HHO gas, except this page for deletion! There doesn't even seem to be a Brown's Gas page (as referenced many times in the discussion). I would like to have some information, even if it is just to say this is a hoax!

Almost anytime I read an articles for deletion page I can never follow the discussion or reasoning. It just seems like some god-like force in wikipedia removes the article and all that's left are screaming voices. -- 71.218.50.181 04:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

I completely agree with last post. Please include this article. If wikipedia is to be a valuable resource, it must/should include information on HHO. The information about the Denny Klein's hoax is also valuable (this is the Fox new video). After all, many UFOs hoaxes are found on wikipedia.

Furthermore, HHO also called HOH, is very similar (but not the same as) Brown's gas, a mixture of 11% hydrogen and oxygen (http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm). This was tested in the welding industry as a possible fuel source but results in exothermic decompression (implosion) when the tanks are almost empty. Brown's gas is not in wikipedia either. Yet both HHO and Brown's gas are real substances. They have real properties, some of which are dangerous. Wikipedia does have a page for oxy-hydrogen (basically HHO), but no properties on its safety, or applicability as an automotive fuel. I believe Klein's video shows a HHO booster, similar to hydrogen boosters which already exists. (http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/Articles/index.cfm/act/featuredarticles/article/the-hydrogen-boosted-gasoline-engine-cga.html). However, they do not replace gasoline engines as you cannot get 100 miles from a gallon of water. (http://mb-soft.com/public2/storing.html)... Bottom line. Real facts about it are needed on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.208.203 (talk • contribs) on 11:22, 29 March 2007.

This whole thing smells of a conspiracy which is against the whole project ethos. Even if this was a hoax there should be an article on it. Ssssstu 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This deletion discussion is closed; the only way to revisit the outcome is via WP:DRV. --Christopher Thomas 06:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)