Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12

Oz_Enterprise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in the past, largely because it had few sources outside its own websites. However, the revised article has two external sources. The reason given at the time was notability, but I feel that the subject has been proven notable. Some of the votes for deletion included "Yawn. Another Linux distro" and other reasons that in my opinion were insubstantial. Thomasmallen 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse notability still not established. From what I can see the two outside websites metioned are [1] and [2], neither of which can be considered a reliable source, the first is a sourceforge like project the second is a wiki. --pgk 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Relatively short debate in the AFD but the claims to notability were addressed and there seems to be no procedural errors here. DRV shouldn't be a place to rerun AFD discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but permit re-creation if there ever does get some real outside third party references from software reviews and the likeDGG
• Endorse deletion. The only "keep" arguments at the AfD amounted to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and failed to cite anything even resembling a reliable source. Delete arguments cited policies and guidelines. There is no question which argument should have prevailed, and closer made absolutely no mistakes. I've used nothing but Linux for nearly a decade now, but I see nothing to establish the notability of this distribution. It isn't even in the top 100 at distrowatch. In fact, it doesn't seem to be listed there at all! That's pretty non-notable! Note that the fact that distrowatch has a top 100 list helps explain the "Yawn. Another Linux distro" comment. As does the fact that they reportedly receive "an average of 2 - 3 requests per week to include a new distribution". I didn't bother to count all their distros, but they have over forty starting with the letter 'A' alone! Anyway, if you can't meet their standards for inclusion (basically, has existed for at least 90 days), you're certainly far short of meeting Wikipedia's. Xtifr _tälk 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolcode (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The situation has changed since the AfD-debate about six weeks ago. The main arguments were that the programming language was not notable and lacked a clear definition. Now, a Google-search yields about 750,000 results (compare with for example Malbolge which is an accepted article, yet receives only 20,000 results), and a defined Lolcode version 1.0 has been established. Because of this, I think a new debate is appropriate. Hymyly^T@C 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• There do seem to be some reliable sources now at [3]. But when genuinely new information or sources emerge, it's usually okay to just recreate the article. I'm sure most admins would userfy this for you so you can work on it. --W.marsh 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• The debate closed one week ago, not six weeks ago. --- RockMFR 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right. Sorry, I must have misread somehow... Hymyly^T@C 14:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Can someone at least explain what the arguments for deletion were? Someone's deleted the discussion page for it. As far as I can tell, its a community project that has been mentioned on Linux.com and several other notable websites, returns nearly 750,000 Google results, and has a large and active community. It deserves at least a stub- there are plenty of less worthy articles out there. Patch86 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• "There are plenty of less worthy articles out there" = WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS = non sequitur.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS correctly, they say that inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and that you cannot use just any existing article as evidence because "Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't". In this case, Malbolge is a long article that has existed since 2003, and so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here. Am I right? Hymyly^T@C 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Especially look at the standards exercised in other articles about esoteric programming languages, with respect to what sort of sourcing is used: mostly self-published sources with one or two external mentions. I'm talking here about content, not existence. The scope of Wikipedia articles is generally defined by WP:N, but that's only a setup to help editors decide if our core values (WP:5P+WP:NOT), and more importance issues of scope, are met.
    • It's pretty clear that we should leave this a protected redirect, not an article (not notable enough for its own article, but noted by a reliable source in connection with lolcats), and then replaced with an article if a draft can be approved. Gracenotes^T § 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolcode --W.marsh 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If you think there are reliable sources for this, please list them here. Counting google hits doesn't really help. The google news search pointed to above has one article from a blog, one that only contains a link to a website (with nothing written about it in the actual article), and one article about the meme, with a short mention of the programming language. With just those, it's not possible to write a decent, sourced article. A mention of this at the article about the meme would probably be appropriate, but it's not independently notable. - Bobet 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you conclude that it's "not possible to write a decent, sourced article" based on notability? If those articles are enough to establish its _existence_, why can't the "decent, sourced article" come from other sources, such as the official LOLCode site? I wouldn't expect any other language's page to get all its details from news articles.-- Arachnid
• Keep deleted. I would have wanted to keep the article but I think that Wikipedia doesn't revolve around me. The deletion discussion was validly closed. JIP | Talk 14:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• OK, heres a question: what criteria are we willing to wait for it to meet before it becomes a viable article? The deletion discussion seems to have 2 recurring arguments: firstly, that it is too new to warrant inclusion. Secondly, that it has not been mentioned by a verifiable source. The first is clearly something that is extremely POV- what is too new? Is it ok to rewrite in a week? A month? A year? A decade? At which point does an topic become "article worthy"? The second point is covered by the recent article on Linux.com- a more reputable source of open-source news you'd be hard pushed to find. Lets decide on the criteria we want it to meet, and then we can see if it ever meets it. Patch86 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse Please consider coming up with a new article in your userspace and addressing the concerns on reliable sourcing. Once you have something to go on you can either move it into main space or bring it back here is there are any outstanding doubts about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• By the way, I have voted to keep Lolcode a protected redirect above. Gracenotes^T § 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - As I pointed out in the AfD, a majority of the article was simply copy & pasted from the website, thus a copyvio. Further, there is no notability. Google hits are not a reliable source, and there are no articles published about this. It's a small project that a few people find entertaining. That's it. We can't cite the LOLcode site any more than we could MySpace or another self-published site. If someone can find multiple reliable sources, as required, I'd reconsider. -- Kesh 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any objections to it being a protected redirect? Gracenotes^T § 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD mentioned above has now run its course. It was closed as "delete", and I fail to see how this can possibly reflect community consensus. Related discussion:

• WP:AN#Omegatron
• User talk:Omegatron#HHO/Brown's Gas
• User talk:Kurykh#HHO and Brown's gas deletions

If I counted correctly, 13-15 people in the AfD recommended to delete, 18-20 to keep (plus minus a few leaning/conditional/merge on each side). Yes, as Kurykh contends, AfD is not a vote. But even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments about the reliability of the sources — this AfD does not reflect a consensus for deletion, not even a rough one, and the policy is clear enough that this defaults to a "keep".

WP:AN: Kurykh's rationale for deletion and for disregarding opinions at the AfD—many of which explicitly state that the articles do not violate WP:RS—is that the articles violate WP:RS. I find this unilateral decision not acceptable and in violation of proper deletion procedure. Femto 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of both HHO gas and related Brown's gas, and a speedy close of this DRV. Please note the AfD involved HHO gas and Brown's gas. Not sure if nominator intended to discuss both articles. Just to be sure, this is the neverending story of editors having a total disregard for normal procedure and as such refusing to abide by policy: i.e. AfD and DRV. For details on why this is repeatedly deleted and there is no reason to recreate yet again see:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (2nd nomination)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis

One would think that after this many deletions, for what essentially is the same article, having yet another DRV looks more like WP:POINT and should be speedy closed. As to WP:RS, nominator is free to supply any reputable scientific source stating this is either about real science or it is a hoax. Since after all those AfD's it is still impossible to provide such a source the rationale to delete stands, and coincidentally is every time the same: violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• And also, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 14 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 7. >Radiant< 13:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unclosed. Please let process proceed. Georgewilliamherbert 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that George is an involved user with respect to this issue, so he really shouldn't be throwing accusations of abuse around. >Radiant< 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My involvement starts with the last AFD closure - I have no preexisting conflict of interest. Any admin can review the actions of another... Georgewilliamherbert 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • For the record, Radiant, you voted about this issue in the March 14 review for "endorse deletion", yourself. Femto 12:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions and close review - AfD is not a vote, and I am quite satisfied with the decision to delete. The case for keeping these articles was based on claims that short local news stories confer notability if the station or newspaper is notable, or that conference proceedings act as reliable scientific publications. Neither is the case. After one throws out the opinions to keep based on notability and the opinions to delete based on its being a hoax, one is left with articles that lack reliable sourcing and is therefore are subject to deletion for much the same reasons as in previous times. Please keep these topics deleted and salted until and unless they attain some real notability. --EMS | Talk 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To Nomen Nescio: Yes, you may assume the review extends to any pages that are deleted citing this AfD.

The previous AfDs are irrelevant to the current issue at hand. That you list them, intermingling Brown's gas with HHO gas yet again, only shows your need to distract from the fact that you have no point about the actual subject of this review.

It was not the purpose of the AfD to supply sources for the article, but to determine whether the existing sources are adequate enough. Individual opinions notwithstanding, I maintain, the consensus of this deletion debate, and the outcome of this AfD per Wikipedia's deletion policy, is that there is no justification for deletion. Femto 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete both as redirects to Oxyhydrogen - and mention both historical Brown's gas and the HHO pseudoscience or hoax stuff there. We both need to cover that these are real phenomena and not give credibility to the kooks that the sources do not support. This was proposed in AFDs as a middle ground and rejected in favor of extremes, which don't serve the encyclopedia well. If I can google either term and get hundreds of hits, we should list these somehow, even if they are listings of a minor industrial use and a pseudoscience / hoax phenomena. Georgewilliamherbert 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - This is tenable, but I would like to see what the Oxyhydrogen article would be changed to in advance, including what sourcing there is for any statements made there. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for God's sake. How often do we have to go round this loop? Endorse, come back when there is something in a reputable pee-reviewed paper. This is just like Aetherometry; while it would be great to be the Internet's leading debunker of scams, it almost always violates our policies. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Do you disbelieve that there are a small number of Brown's gas welders out there? Tsk tsk. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. I was really hoping that the last AfD would produce some productive results - ie. some kind of compromise that would make for a satisfactory conclusion to this back-and-forth. Unfortunately at this time the sourcing to create a valid article (about the hoax) still doesn't quite exist. I did like the suggestion to redirect them to Oxyhydrogen and feel that it was a better middle-ground solution, particularly in the face of the lack of consensus generated. I don't feel there was sufficient consensus in the AfD to really close it as a delete but I'm not going to cry about that - I would like to see them redirected somewhere. Alas. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn both - clear violation of Deletion policy
  1. I count 19 keep votes vs 15 delete votes. Do you count differently? It's pretty outlandish to claim that this constitutes a rough consensus for deletion, don't you think? AfD is not a headcount, but a deletion in spite of consensus to keep should only be done in special cases (copyright violations, meatpuppets, etc.)
  2. Even if the situation were reversed, and there was a slight majority for deletion, Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, and this would still not constitute a rough consensus for deletion. In the case of no consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, the default action is to keep:
     • "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." — Deletion policy
     • "The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept." — {{Afd no consensus}}
     • "When in doubt, don't delete." — Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
  3. Several of the delete votes were solely for HHO gas, not Brown's gas. The articles are quite different (and should never have been lumped into a single AfD).
  4. Radiant's mention of "thirteen" debates (where did he get that number?) and the repeated "recreation of deleted content" criticism is irrelevant. It is well-defined in policy that a re-created article is acceptable if it takes into account the problems with the deleted version. In addition, the previous deletion review explicitly stated that the articles could be recreated. The latest versions of the articles were very different from the previously deleted versions, written entirely from scratch with verifiable, reliable sources.
  5. If Kurykh personally believes that the articles did not have reliable sources or were not notable, he should have voted delete like the rest of us and left the closure for a neutral admin. Those claiming that the articles don't have reliable sources probably haven't actually read them, and are just making assumptions based on past deletions. See Talk:Brown's gas#References and Talk:HHO gas#References for a few. The articles certainly need work and more sources, but that's not a criteria for deletion.

  Do you really think that 19 editors (including seven administrators) are all incompetent to interpret our policies, and can legitimately be overruled by one admin's personal opinion?

  The people who promote these gases claim that they are similar to oxyhydrogen, but contain other anomalous compounds and properties, which is why these unique claims are separated from the oxyhydrogen article. If you want to discuss merging or renaming, go right ahead, but the articles are kept by default, and that discussion takes place on the articles' talk pages, not on AfD. This unilateral deletion and attempts to prevent deletion review are completely unacceptable. — Omegatron 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - I would love to know why you are so adamant about these topics needing coverage, to the point that you are willing to grasp at any straw to assert notability. As I see it, you did a wonderful job of pushing a falacious theory of notability. IMO Kurykh did a fine job of seeing that theory for what it was, as so disregarded the keep votes based on it and quite properly deleted the article. Even now, you are arguing that by votes there was no consensus even as you quote that "These processes are not decided through a head count"! IMO, it is time for you to stop this strange campaign to give these scams coverage and notice that they do not deserve. --EMS | Talk 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  And you are again insinuating that Omegatron is somehow trying to promote these things. Can't you see? It can't possibly hurt us to have articles debuking these well-documented fraudulent claims. At least Brown's gas is notable, so much so that some people think it is the correct name for oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  The bias itself is obvious but I will apologize to Omegatron for not assuming good faith before in terms of my speculation on its source. I agree that notable hoaxes deserve articles. As for "debunking" them I refer you to WP:NPOV, which hopefully does not get in the way of that. Beyond that, oxyhydrogen is obviously notable, and if Brown's gas is really that common of a term then there should be no problem establishing its notability based on reliable sources in my mind. So far, that has no been done. OTOH, what I have seen would justify a section at oxyhydrogen and a redirect from Brown's gas to that article. --EMS | Talk 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've already explained my rationale a bazillion times. Go read it on the AfD or the articles' talk pages. Please stick to discussion of the actual deletion process. — Omegatron 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I stand by my decision. May I refer everyone to my post here and ask that Omegatron reread all of our policies and get accustomed to Wikipedia norms before making any further erroneous comments. —Kurykh 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. As the last DRV said, we ought to have this information in Wikipedia somewhere. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Although Omegatron and you try and articulate that numerous AfD's should be ignored you also fail to undertand the principal argument in this case: the articles were deleted for violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. So, what exactly does that mean?

1. The articles said X gas exists.
2. The articles said X gas has special properties.
3. The articles said X gas is a hoax.

None of these statements can be sourced to scientific articles. Not even an adequate and non-promotional journalistic valid news report exists. What we are left with are three statements for which no sources can be found. This is considered to be a -wait a minute, it is amazing! oops, it can't be, yes,- a violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Exactly the reason they were deleted. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep this garbage deleted. extraordinary new scientific claims must be peer reviewed before we accept them, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. -N 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closing admin seems to have ignored the discussion and instead closed based on his personal take on the article. That oversteps admin discretion for what should have been a no consensus close. --JJay 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • More argumentum ad populum arguments. —Kurykh 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus for closing as delete. The sources were widely discussed during the debate, yet a majority wanted the article kept. It is not your role to state that the sources are inadequate. Instead, you ignored the discussion and made an innapropriate block threat. When I pointed to the 2006 article from the International journal of hydrogen energy[4], the response I received was: "I'd love to know how this stuff gets past a peer review, but for the less prominant journals the publication of alternate views may be a way of filling page space".[5] That is an inadequate response. The sources + media attention were considered during this debate and there was no consensus to delete. --JJay 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • JJay -
        1. I am the one who complained about the peer review, not Kurykh.
        2. Lacking any trail of articles that refer to the one you cited, it fails WP:SCIENCE anyway, and so confers no notability on the topic.
        3. AfD is not decided by counting votes anyway. Kurykh had to decide if the keep opinions were based on an acceptable case for notability, and decided (correctly IMO) that they were not. That is not an abuse of his discression as an admin.

        Please see WP:N. Notability is not confered by primary sources alone, but that is all that you and the others are able to offer on this sorry topic. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

      • "Many people say keep" is, as I have said ad nauseam, an argumentum ad populum argument. Sorry for the plethora of Latin here, but you are only rehashing an already refuted argument. —Kurykh 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Whatever language you use, your disdain for the people who participated in the debate doesn't need translation. --JJay 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And your poisonous words and disdain for policy need no translation either. I appreciate it. —Kurykh 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the previous thirteen debates on the issue. How often must this discussion be repeated? I certainly agree to a redirect anywhere that would resolve the issue. >Radiant< 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorseI simply can't see a valid encyclopedic article coming out of the ashes of this lot. We are better off without it - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for "The Truth"^TM Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  This is a deletion review. It's for discussion about the deletion process itself, not about the article. The arguments for deletion were already made in the AfD, and rejected by a majority. — Omegatron 13:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the talk page is undeleted, and has been tagged for speedy deletion at least twice now. I added a warning there. - Nabla 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. —Kurykh 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion These are promotional hoaxes trying to profit at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility. --Tbeatty 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. (user voted twice) Article was deleted in process and with consensus. salt it if necessary. --Tbeatty 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain how a roughly 19:15 majority for keeping the article, with competent editors on both sides, is a "rough consensus for deletion". This defies all logic. — Omegatron 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Contrary to your comment, this is not a vote. Are you familiar with the process? --Tbeatty 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It may not be a vote, but you still only get to endorse once. Please strike out your second vote endorsement. --JJay 22:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote and there was nothing worth keeping in the articles as they stood. Articles on hoaxes and fringe theories are hard to write well. These weren't it. --John 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on the grounds that there has been no violation of deletion policy and the closing admin did not err in reading consensus. The purpose of an AfD, as people have said, is not a vote, but a discussion. The earlier 12 debates and the lack of policy grounds used by Keep voters would undoubtedly have been key in the decision - it wasn't even just a lack of formal citation, on reading the debate, but a series of "it should have an article" arguments. Orderinchaos 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Brown's gas article has plenty of citations and sources, and "it should have an article" is absolutely a reason to keep it in an AFD debate. You cannot simply say "those AFD opinions don't matter"; they are valid, and claiming they didn't count towards consensus is illegitimate. Georgewilliamherbert 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "It should have an article" = WP:ILIKEIT, as so is not a valid argument for keeping an article. This is part of the policies that are being followed here. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --EMS | Talk 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If you are going to cite policy, cite actual policy. WP:ILIKEIT is an essay. WP:SCIENCE is not policy or guideline. Neither should ever be cited as policy--JJay 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, "It should have an article" = "This topic comes up repeatedly in questions. There are real products in the real world named this and in at least moderate use. There is an associated pseudoscientific hoax that people are asking about a lot, and the verifyable debunking of which is notable and a useful topic". There are plenty of WP core goal, policy, and guideline compliant reasons for keeping the article. There are verifyable sources as to the patents, low-volume usage in industry of Brown's gas welding equipment, and to the HHO hoax/pseudoscience stuff. Since these exist, there is no valid reason to delete the articles. Don't cover up the sources and arguments on the keep side to make false claims of tidy deletability. ILIKEIT's companion is IDONTLIKEIT, and that's equally bogus. Georgewilliamherbert 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, "it exists" is not a valid reason to keep either. -- Kesh 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, if there is a source provide one. People keep saying there are sources so show us a scientific article that substantiates or debunks the existence of whatever you want to call this miracle gas. Or, at least a real and sceptical and (investigative) journalistic valid news report. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, an encyclopedia utilizes third party sources to cite statements made in articles/academic publications/news (in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:RS. All academic publications, in good faith, must be considered as such unless there is peer review that says the contrary. Absence of peer review cannot, by default, establish breach of the WP:RS policy, especially if an article has already been published in a known academic journal. If third party sources exist that can be cited according to WP:CITE, then there is justification for statements to be made in an article that utilize proper citation. I move that this debate become focused on establishing what sources are consistent with WP:RS rather than "should such articles exist"; The existence of a single source that meets WP:RS is grounds for the existence of an article that utilizes said source for proper citation. Essentially this debate should become about policy, and the application of WP:RS. Noah Seidman 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be advised this user has a commercial interest (see bottom of page) in propagating this fantasy. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This deletion review is about Wikipedia policy of which I have no commercial interest. A deletion review debate, according to Wikipedia policy, pertains to the conclusion of a AfD debate, not the content of the article in question, therefore conflict of interest in this particular debate is irrelevant. Mention of "fantasy" brings the content of the article in question into this debate, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy regarding the purpose of a deletion review; Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} has officially breached the policy of the deletion review process. Noah Seidman 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that I have not contributed to the article in question, showing good faith that I believe a third party article can be created, I would like to refer the closing administrator to the following talk page; dealing with an conflict of interest on the part of Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}: Talk:Medical literature Noah Seidman 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you refrain from turning this into a personal matter? My edits on whatever article is irrelevant to the fact that you have a COI with these articles. Since there is no reason to derail this DRV I sincerely ask you to remove the inappropriate comment. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This example of conflict of interest goes direct toward your credibility in this deletion review; the example you cited regarding me is directly comparable to your profile page; the statement clearly says "my medical site". Noah Seidman 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How interesting: WP:RS says nothing about a single reliable source establishing that an article in encyclopedic. Also, when I look at WP:N and WP:V, the request in for "reliable sources". Note that this is plural, not singular. --EMS | Talk 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N exactly how many sources is required to be encyclopedic? Two [2] would be plural. Noah Seidman 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Does a source require a reliable source to be determined unreliable, or can un-reliability be determined by the general consensus/opinions of a debate?

If general consensus is used to determine an article should be deleted, and general consensus does not require a majority [>50%], can a general consensus be used to substantiate recreation of an article?

Given the specific ratio of votes, in the relevant deletion review debate, does this establish a baseline for what general consensus is, or is general consensus determined on an AfD by AfD basis? Noah Seidman 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just a bunch of wikilawyering, and I see no need to respond further to it. --EMS | Talk 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - DRV is not AfD. Please discuss the deletion process and not the merits of the article itself. But if you're going to make claims that the article inherently violates WP:RS and WP:NOR, to the point that this overrules a clear consensus against deletion, you need to back up those claims. Reliable sources were included for the claims made by proponents. Criticisms and debunking were included for a neutral point of view. The criticisms and debunking were not invented by Wikipedians; they were attributed to the prominent notable critics who made them, and reliable sources were cited for their criticisms. Please actually read the deleted articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions based on past deletion nominations or Nomen's baseless claims. — Omegatron 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• So, feel free to provide any reputable scientific source stating miracle gas exists or that it is a hoax. Claiming Randi is a valid source for criticism is ludicrous. Do we use him to point out Intelligent Design is bogus? Or that those claiming HIV is not related to AIDS are misinforming us? Clearly it is a scientific claim therefore we need scientists to refute it otherwise we are violating WP:NOR. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Restore them; then either temporarily fully protect them or temporarily block their spammers, so that their spammers cannot edit them back to the spam while any admins that know about the science involved eliminate the spam and sort the matter into these topics:-
  • With Brown's gas, oxygen and hydrogen having no unusual properties but staying mixed all the way from the electrolyser to the torch. If this is real-world technology, keep this matter in a section of its own.
  • Unreal claims for properties of oxyhydrogen mixtures (in both pages) made by particular alleged processes. Summarise, eliminate spam, make it clear that this matter is hoax. If this hoax is widely heard of among welders etc, then it is noteworthy as a hoax and the public needs to be warned that it is hoax.
  • Water-fuelled car: perhaps insert a section distinguishing the nonexistent water-fuelled car from a car run on hydrogen which was made earlier by electrolyzing water; but neither of these is really a use of oxyhydrogen.
  • The section Brown's gas#Atomic welding may to refer to "monatomic hydrogen" (which gets 9290 ghits) or "atomic hydrogen": see Atomic hydrogen welding.

  If this gets the total matter reasonably short, merge into Oxyhydrogen. Let HHO gas and Brown's gas redirect to appropriate sections of Oxyhydrogen. Anthony Appleyard 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  'Atomic hydrogen' and 'monatomic hydrogen' are the same thing, actually. The way, the truth, and the light 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion and run separate AfDs for the two different articles. I always say that bundled nominations of several articles into one is blatant arms twisting and a room for abuse or misunderstanding both by voters and the closing admin. As one of admins put it: 383 revisions restored: AFD was for HHO, not Brown's Gas. Conflating the two and deleting this one was in error. HHO is the hoax, Brown's Gas has long and notable scientific/industrial history). `'юзырь:mikka 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it was reasonable to bundle the two together. They are very similar hoax concepts, and involve the same issues - though as I have said Brown's gas is somewhat more notable. The way, the truth, and the light 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn deletion and re-nominate each with a cogent argument for deletion. The AfD process was deficient from the start. I'm really sick of these throw it against the wall and see if it sticks nominations, and this a good example of why we need to really rethink the deletion process as it is currently practiced. The deletion process is supposed to produce a rough consensus for deletion. But when the nomination is not specific, as in this case, the discussion goes all over the place, as in this case, and no clear consensus can be discerned from the process, as in this case. We really need to insist that the nominations are specific as to why an article should be deleted, and then focus on that. The idea that deletion can be a moving target, and that the article and the discussion can change during the process, and still produce a result that reflects consensus is ridiculous. Dhaluza 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see this as a "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" situation - this article and its associated ones (see above) have been deleted every time they've been debated. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  As I wrote above, the information in page Brown's gas has 2 components:-

  1. Unseparated oxygen-hydrogen mixture going from the electrolyser to the torch. Sounds unsafe but likely.
  2. Strange claims for that mixture's properties, similarly to HHO gas.

  I suppose that it could be that with the gases mixed all through instead of them having to take time mixing in the torch, that may make the flame a bit hotter; but not all the fancy HHO-gas-type claims. Anthony Appleyard 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a most difficult one. It would be fine to have a decent and informative article about Hydrogen quackery, but I'm not sure whether this is only difficult or impossible. The now-deleted article versions were noticably better than the older ones, but not to the extent to fully convince me. But the worst point is, that we don't have reliable sources to debunk this nonsense and with the fundamentalist handling of WP:V and WP:NOR these policies have turned against their creators. WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door, now it is used by them to eliminate any counter argument from their articles. Have a look at the mess at Water fuel cell. Without a new policy Wikipedia:This encyclopedia obeys the laws of physics I'm unclear how to counter this crap. Summary: I'm clueless how to proceed. Compare als my last AfD statement [6]. --Pjacobi
• How long has the WP:NOR rule been in effect? (Page Wikipedia:No original research was created at 15:15 on 21 December 2003.) It is hard to see how the dispute re these two pages, and queries about the page Water fuel cell, can be finally solved without allowing some simple provable proof or disproof based on simple known laws of physics and chemistry (rather than advanced complicated new scientific theories). In "WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door", who were the "physics cranks"? Were they people who thought they knew the laws of physics but did not and were talking rubbish? Or were they people making valid scientific reasoning and were the people complaining about them non-scientists who could not understand the scientific reasoning? And, if (for example), there are three items of information X and Y and Z, and an editor has external references for X and Y but not for Z, and in Wikipedia he says correctly that Z can be proved from X and Y, how obvious must the line of reasoning be before the WP:NOR rule does not apply or can be bent? (See "De minimis non curat lex"). If the WP:NOR rule should be revised, then it must be revised. I and likely many other Wikipedia editors have been handcuffed various times by the WP:NOR rule not letting the editor mention how one or two basic scientific points affect the topic of the page being edited. Anthony Appleyard 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Can someone please explain how this violates WP:RS and WP:NOR? Still these accusations are coming in, even though a majority of competent users voted that the article was acceptable as written. For instance:

  • Ruggero Santilli claims that this gas burns at a very high temperature because it sublimates tungsten.[Santilli's journal article] Don Lancaster points out that this is actually not sublimation, but oxidation, since it's carried out in air.[Lancaster's magazine article]
    • How is this original research? We're not inventing our own explanation for the effect; we're attributing and citing a notable critic.
    • How are these sources not reliable? Both are verifiable sources for the claims made by either party. Both have gone through third-party editorial review and are not self-published.
    • How is this not neutral? It presents a somewhat dubious claim made by the proponent, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of what's actually happening in this situation.
  • News programs claim that this company has produced a water-fuelled car.[Cite news sources themselves] Notable pseudoscience debunker James Randi points out that this is an old hoax, and explains why it doesn't make sense.[James Randi's newsletter] Dr. Ali T-Raissi (Hydrogen Research Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center), and Sieglinde Kinne (Energy Efficiency Engineer for the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center) also explain how this couldn't work, due to the efficiencies of the chemical processes involved.[Cite this to the newspaper articles that reported on these scientists' explanations]
    • How is this original research? We're not debunking the water-fuelled car based on our own theories; we're attributing and citing a notable critic and two reputable scientists.
    • How are these sources not reliable? The news sources for both the claims and rebuttals are verifiable, not self-published, and have gone through third-party editorial review. The source for Randi's claim is self-published, but is a reliable source with which one can verify that he actually criticized them in the way that we say he said.
    • How is this not neutral? It presents a completely bogus claim made by the reporters, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of how this isn't possible according to normal physics, and a criticism from a notable debunker that this is a common hoax used to get money from gullible investors.

  Please explain what's wrong with an article written in this fashion. I can't fathom how this violates any policies. Please actually read the articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions about its merits. — Omegatron 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Given that the article got removed on notability grounds, this is just a bunch of irrelevant wikilawyering.
    Omegatron has consistently shown himself to have an exteme bias in favor of this stuff. This is just one more example of the lengths he is willing to go to to have an articke on it in Wikipedia. IMO, he cares not at all about policy, even as he cites it. --EMS | Talk 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The article was deleted by Kurykh, with a reference to reliable sources and recreation, not notability. You're the one claiming that it's not notable, but several people in the AfD have shown you that it is.
  • Several people continue to claim on this page that the article is original research or has no reliable sources, so I am asking them to demonstrate why. This is not even close to "WikiLawyering".
  • Yes, I want an article on this stuff, while you would prefer to delete most of our articles on pseudoscientific topics. I think everyone is already quite aware of this. You don't need to point out the obvious. When people disagree like this, we hold an AfD, a majority votes to keep the article, and the article is kept. — Omegatron 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It has already been mentioned to you that Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion explicitly states that "[t]hese processes are not decided through a head count". The issue is whether the keep opinions were properly disregarded, and repeating the head count says nothing about that. What you are trying to do is proof by assertion and that is another example of wikilawyering and your trying every trick in the book to have an article on this topic. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (in response to Pjacobi just above) - It is my suggestion that we adjourn back to WP:SCIENCE and see about getting it functional. The goal of the proposed policy IMO is to establish that an topic which has not been adequately enough vetted in either the scientific or popular press enough so that there is (or can be) a case against it is not eligible to be part of Wikipedia. The lack of attention and critical analysis that this has gotten in the literature really are the issue for the AfD. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn based on Femto's concerns about the AfD process. I think the basic points in favor of overturning have all been made above and I will not repeat them here. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Omegatron and Femto. ATren 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn particularly in the case of Brown's gas which was not debated in the Afd but which was deleted anyway. If the opinions were recounted there were more in support of Brown's gas than there were for HHO gas. Deleting the content will not help the recommended merge of information into the other articles mentioned. Also many editors seem to be confused about whether the article is supporting a hoax or is indicating the article is about the hoax controversy. GB 08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of HHO gas or at the very least redirect to oxyhydrogen and keep the salt. Otherwise, we are just going to be back here in a few months. And though it pains me, Overturn Brown's Gas and send back to AfD so it can have its own debate, as it appears to have a fraction more validity. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  Can you explain why you think this should be deleted when the AfD showed no consensus for deletion?

  This is DRV, not AfD. Please comment on the deletion process, not your personal opinion of the validity of the article. — Omegatron 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Because I believe the majority of Keep votes did not show that HHO was sufficiently and reliably sourced. The discussion on Brown's Gas was not as in-depth which is why I suggest it should re-run at AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple, the article was deleted for lack of sources. Guess what, there are no sources, therefore the process was totally valid and no violation can be detected. Of course, you are free to provide a scientific source detailing the technology or the hoax. We both know you can't. Not even a neutral non-promotional news item exists. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That statement is factually incorrect. There were numerous sources attesting to there being such things as "Brown's Gas", and HHO proponents, etc. They exist. They also fail any reasonable reliability guide for scientific statements. If the articles were fawningly repeating the hoax info, then they'd be deletable. They were not, particularly the Brown's gas article. It was sourced. There exist small numbers of Brown's gas electrolyzer welding units in the world, which are not noticably better than other source or mix-on-site oxyhydrogen welders. But they're real, and the reality is reliably sourced. Deleting "for lack of sources" is misrepresenting the record and grounds to reinstate the articles, period. Georgewilliamherbert 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

However, "it exists" is not a reason to have an article, either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When the primary reason given to delete was that it didn't, was a fake/fraud etc, then "it exists" is a reasonably solid counterargument. It's even hard to argue that it's not notable given all the annoyed attention that it gets. Georgewilliamherbert 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's fairly obvious that HHO gas does not exist, the hoax/scam certainly does (it wouldn't attract such attention otherwise). To be honest, the primary reason for delete was not only this, but also that there were so many POV-pushing editors continually editing the article to make it appear that this was reputable, that it would be better for Wikipedia if there wasn't an article at all. After all, it's only a hoax. I think Brown's Gas is somewhat different as it does appear to have some real-world presence. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to sprotect and watch any articles coming out of this to ensure that HHO hoaxers don't re-insert unverifyable info. Brown's gas does have enough verifyable real use to qualify for some coverage somewhere. It's reasonable to say "we've had a hoaxer problem with these articles", but unreasonable to delete all reference as a fix for that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hence my !vote to overturn Brown's Gas. I still think it'd be better that if HHO has to have an article, it should be at HHO gas hoax or similar, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree to that. First of all "HHO gas hoax" is a POV title. More importantly, I don't see the case for notability. HHO and Brown's gas are not unknown, but neither are they widely known or otherwise notable. If they are to be covered at all (and I really do not advise that), then let in be in the oxyhydrogen article, where their claims can be put into a proper context. To the extent that "Brown's gas" has become a synonym for oxyhydrogen instead of referencing Brown's claims for a different gas, this IMO justifies a (protected) redirect to oxyhydrogen instead of an independent article. --EMS | Talk 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian_Crecente (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No clear consensus and questionable nomination for AfD.

The article on "Brian Crecente" was deleted without clear consensus. Additionally the nominator of the AfD isn't a user. How was an AfD created without having to be a user? Per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:

"Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process (emphasis added), as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD."

I feel that the decision should instead be "no consensus" on this article. Outside of the "voting" itself there are questionable motives behind the AfD.

Since the "delete" decision the AfD nominator has stated "I am the nominator and I too was a bit surprised on its speedy deletion. I was expecting more of a debate/consensus to keep it. Although I did nominate it, I would have thought we could have done a major revision or atleast try to make it notable in the first place, as by make, I mean finding real information on the man. If anything I would like it to be fair than biased, so lets see if we can get that debate back up then?"

The AfD discussion shows (4) Delete, (2) Keep & (1) Weak Keep. This includes the non-user that nominated the AfD.

Drew30319 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente (2nd nomination). Neither AfD was a "speedy", but ran longer than the required five days. Endorse redirection, no new arguments other than that the original nominator was an IP address, but that doesn't address the merits of the subject matter. Corvus cornix
  • The deletion review page states: "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." My issue is about the decision to delete while it appeared that there was no consensus. This is the first time I've done a deletion review so I don't claim to know what I'm doing, but that's my understanding based on what I've read. Feel free to give me some guidance. Drew30319 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - discussion was heading towards changing people's minds. While it's not a vote - unfortunately, the closing nominator gave no reason to explain why he chose to delete instead of keep, especially in light of the fact that the keep proponents gave good arguments, while none of the deletion arguments provided much basis for deleting:

• Resume-esque 69.158.170.135

• Argument fails to account for notability. If it's resume-esque, it should be fixed, not deleted so as to never exist again.

• Delete, maybe speedy G4. I'm suspicious because an anon IP had posted the AfD, but the article doesn't show much notability here. G4 because of the first nomination - though it's probably a bit far out for that kind of a speedy. --Dennis The Tiger

• No specific reason stated, except G4 - yet it wasn't speedy material. WP:JNN - just not notable.

• Delete: Non-notable person. PRs and some articles do not assert notability Seicer

• WP:JNN - same problem.

• Delete per Tony and hmwith

• WP:PERNOMINATOR - nothing added.

In all, the keep arguments were stronger than the deletion arguments, unquestionably. The Evil Spartan 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Closer was not out of line with the close but it may be more helpful to look for more consensus on these types of nominations. Attempts by the DRV nom to dismiss the AfD on procedural grounds because of "non-editors" is a little distasteful, though. IP editors are every bit as useful to the project as anyone else, and these kinds of arguments are a little bite-y. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm willing to assume good faith in editor's part. He has relatively few edits, and I think what he means is anonymous editors - he just didn't know the right word. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• If I'm the "editor" being referred to (I guess that "DRV nom" means the person that entered this for deletion review, right?) then yes, I absolutely mean anonymous editors. The issue (to me) is that it appears that one person using a handful of IP addresses was making changes to the article in question and then proposed the AfD. I still don't understand how a non-user could propose an AfD because according to WP:AfD that isn't possible. I believe that the anonymous editor is probably better versed in all things Wiki than I am (at least to pull of the AfD without registering!). However, that to me is a side-issue. The real issue that I have is that there did not appear to be consensus to delete. Drew30319 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closer (note, I've fixed the AFD link at the top of this review). I thought it was close but given the presence of only one reliable source, with contributors unable to provide a second, it was on the whole a delete. Neil ╦ 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If the issue is that there is "only one reliable source" then here are a few:
    • New York Times
    • New York Times
    • ABC News
    • Fox News

(note: Google is insufficient for many of the major media sites and require searching within the website itself.) Drew30319 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The fact that the AfD process was started by an anonymous IP address should not be relevant in this case. IP address accounts do not have the ability to create the AfD page such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian_Crecente (2nd nomination). However, User:Uncle G apparently saw that the IP user had attempted to start the deletion process and chose to complete the process by creating the AfD page with the IP user's comments as the first deletion reason. This can be seen in the AfD page's history. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Two delete AfDs and currently a redirect to an appropriate article. I endorse that. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, wild allegations of wrongful process are not grounds for overturning anything. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse because it was a reasonable outcome. That the nom was anonymous does not bother me. That it was a spa does. However, I interpret Uncle G's completion of the nom as endorsement of it, and obviously, any anon or spa could have called the attention of any editor to a dubious article, and if the ed. thought it was dubious, the ed. could nominate it just the same as if the ed. had come upon the article without the suggestion. I've looked at articles at the request of other people who wanted my opinion--a great many of us have. However, the potential for abuse here is very real & has to be kept in mind. We have a system where the process works in a way that makes it is much easier to delete articles than to keep them . DGG 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete & Relist The AFD debate had few participants and several voting to keep showed evidence of carefully considering the relevent policies. I'd be inclined to relist this with caution that the sourcing of the article and verifiability must be addressed if this is to survive the rerun AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and give time for people to rewrite it. The article was significantly edited while the AfD was running, and the later comments tend towards "keep". Anthony Appleyard 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm too lazy to make up an(other) NYT account right now, but the other two new sources provided here seem to be passing mentions, not actual coverage of the person, and I suspect from the comments that the NYT sources are similar. But the article did have at least one arguable passable source—not enough to establish notability, but considerable better than none. If more non-trivial sources show up (or even just a whole bunch more trivial ones sufficient to count as "broad coverage") I'd definitely be wiling to reconsider. Xtifr _tälk 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)