Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 14

Accidental Centaurs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Accidental Centaurs is a webcomic created and drawn by John Lotshaw that debuted on January 15, 2002. Sandstein closed AfD#1 on 14 December 2006, stating that the outcome of the deletion debate was delete. On 19 December 2006, King of Hearts speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs and redirected it to deleted page "The Accidental Centaurs."[1] On 12 March 2007 BradBeattie speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs writing, "Redeleting previously AFD'd article."[2] Dread Lord CyberSkull now seeks review of the delete outcome of the 14 December 2006 AfD, reasoning that "this page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an AFD before, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work." (Summary provided by Jreferee 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)).

• Overturn This page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an AFD before, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The book is published by Plan 9 Publishing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and endorse re-deletions. This article was deleted for lack of notability. No new evidence has been presented to justify revisiting that decision. The webcomic has been released in print (3 books that I could find) but the Amazon sales rankings are 1,865,341, 2,135,425 and None. Rossami (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse for now. 3 book collections would seem like a good sign, but the Amazon rankings are abysmal and none of the 3 had any editorial reviews listed. The article itself was totally unreferenced, and we wouldn't want it coming back in that form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse In the case of books it should be easy to point to reviews in mass market media to demonstrate notabilty. If you can do this, I'll be prepared to review my !vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closing admin. Neither the article subject to AfD nor the recreated version come even close to meeting any notability guideline. Being published as a book does not constitute notability, as we are not an index of books. Sandstein 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Brown Quote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Escalalting use of the phrase in UK business 4five 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Immediately undeleted since it was deleted as a PROD. —Angr 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) AfD 3, AfD 2, AfD 1

Aquygen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) AfD 2, AfD 1

Brown's gas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) AfD 2, AfD 1

Magnecular bond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) AfD

...

A number of related articles are being repeatedly nominated for deletion for inappropriate reasons. Although I agree with some of the deletions, this topic needs to be covered in some form or other. Salting is entirely inappropriate. At least one or two of the articles need to be re-created, though I'm not sure which or in which format.

This is not a request to undelete all of these articles. It is a request to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Reviewing several articles at once.

I've just gone through all the various AfDs, and all of the reasons cited for deletion fall under one of the following:

• "Violates WP:HOAX", "Most likely a hoax", " concept exists only within a fringe theory"
  • This is probably the biggest complaint, but is not, in fact, a valid criteria for deletion. Contrary to popular belief, WP:HOAX does not prohibit articles about hoaxes. Go read it. It prohibits creating articles that are hoaxes. We have hundreds of articles about hoaxes, frauds, pseudosciences, scientific fallacies, cons, and deceptions, and this is a very Good Thing.
• "Violates WP:NN", "Google returns 769 hits on this person", "nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. Blogs, forums, post your own press release sites", "No reliable, third party sources"
  • I've compiled a list of references for the article, which also clearly demonstrates that the topic meets our primary criterion: It's been mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal and featured in a number of independent newspapers, in both articles and televised reports.
• "But those are all self-published promotional sources"
  • No they aren't. "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight." Even the article in Nexus magazine doesn't count as self-publishing. Independent, third-party newspapers and journals definitely don't.
• "Violates WP:OR", " User:Nseidm1 editing/re-creating these articles may be in a Conflict of interest"
  • Yes, Noah needs to be prevented from biasing the article, but this is a user problem, not an article problem. We don't delete articles just because they've been edited by people who might be biased. (Note that he endorsed deletion after I had edited the article to be more neutral.)
• "But look at this huge list of related AfDs; this article should be deleted, too, because it's similar", "Numerous articles that did not survive AfD in the past are recently recreated as redirect to this page"
  • Repeated deletion and re-creation of similar articles is not a criteria for deletion. In fact, our deletion policy states that "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article"
• "I'm sick and tired of reverting this into a semi-sane state."
  • Me too, but it's our duty to cover it in some form, in a neutral, verifiable, scientific way.

I'm currently leaning towards a Brown's gas article and an HHO gas article, since they are promoted by different people and claimed to be unique substances. The Ruggero Santilli article was kept, so the magnecule stuff can go in his own article. Stuff about conventional electrolysis→oxyhydrogen welding goes in Oxy-fuel welding and cutting#Hydrogen.

• Overturn as nominator; weren't nominated for valid reasons. At the least, salting to prevent re-creation is inappropriate given notability of topic. — Omegatron 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AFDs with clear and strong consensus towards deletion. >Radiant< 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you also endorse salting to prevent re-creation? — Omegatron 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional overturn. What Omegatron says. The deletions, individually, clearly are justifiable. But as a whole, we should have at least one page on the topic. I agree there is enough outside coverage to make this notable, and there is evidence of a need for an article. (Though I'm not touching the task of maintaining it with a ten foot pole—but that's not a valid reason to have nothing at all on the topic other than salted pages.) Even if it's scientifically confused partisan nonsense, the need for this encyclopedia to explain the "why", and to cover the history, remains.

  I support the suggestion to keep Brown's gas and HHO gas as distinct topics, with restrictions of the content on POV, notability, and verifiability as per the previous AfDs. The ruling on other pages such as Yull Brown, Denny Klein, Aquygen, etc. will remain that they should not be recreated except as protected redirects to their appropriate main page. Femto 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As much as I may feel that the concept, in general, has enough notability and can be well enough sourced to merit at least one article as per User:Omegatron above, the previous AfD's were all valid and there was a strong consensus to delete, so there is no grounds to overturn the deletion. I do take issue with the protected deletion, however, as it precludes re-creating the article under encyclopedic standards. I do understand the closing admin's concerns though, as the article kept getting re-created and re-deleted, and the back and forth becomes a difficult issue. Arkyan 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletionAs is explained here there were numerous violations of policy cited in the many AfD's: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein for a detailed analysis refuting nominators suggestions.
  1. Being a hoax is not relevant, the missing RS is what this is about.
  2. Contrary to WP:SPAM several commercial websites are used as source.
  3. There are no non-promotional sources available. Even those by CNN and FOX are nothing more than reporting on the promotion by Klein.
  4. There are no independent and journalistic credible sources debunking the claims.
  5. The previous 2 points make any article a violation of WP:NN, WP:OR and WP:RS.
  6. All this resulted in the deletion of all these similar articles. As long as no editor can supply non-promotional sources there is no point in recreating yet again. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I already addressed your concerns in the nomination. Articles presented by third-party, independent newspapers are, in fact, reliable sources for the claims that have been made. They are not self-published, and they are not promotional. Please read through WP:NN, WP:SPAM, and WP:RS, especially WP:SELFPUB, very carefully. — Omegatron 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You still have to explain how buying a report in the media (established news organisation or not) is something other than a subtle advertisement. That still does not constitue RS. As long as no independent news organisation makes a non-promotional comment there is no RS and no NN. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll bite. Reliable sources and notability have provisions for not include non-independant sources such as vanity press, but if you look at the list of references, this topic has appeared on many separate TV stations, newspapers, and JREF considered it notable enough to mention it three times in the newsletter to refute the technology. Were all of those people "bought" ? John Vandenberg 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse without prejudice to coverage as and when reliable independent sources can be found. We have deleted Aetherometry and Electric Universe for pretty much the same reasons: no sources outside of their proponents, no critical review in reputable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The latest article HHO gas should not be judged on the prior Afd's as Omegatron and others put a lot of work into ensuring this article had the WP:RS up front. I'm happy that this has been raised at DRV as the the last AfD skipped my attention because it wasnt delsorted and User:Nescio didnt notify anyone involved about the Afd. The use of WP:NN was in denial of the sources that Omegatron had collated on Talk:HHO gas#References, and the use of the proposed guideline WP:SCI as an argument for deletion was making an assumption that the patents and journal articles that were provided are false, and thus the subject isnt worth an article (undue weight). That rationale for deletion is also unpalatable, as it is in difference to the current practise of documenting pathological science/Fringe science/Hoaxes/Pseudoscience (e.g. Polywater, N ray) (one Afd participant mentioned this). I suggest non-admins review Talk:HHO gas to get a feel for the content that was in the latest article. To the admins, it is quite possible the article POV had switched before the Afd so I suggest going back to Omegatron's last revision to see where the article was going. John Vandenberg 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If seeking to overturn a consensus based deletion, it would be best to split these four deletion reviews out seperately so that they can be given consideration on an individual basis. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. I dont think that there is any call for all of these articles to be undeleted; the problem is that any article remotely related to this are winding up on Afd (multiple times) and being deleted with calls for liberal salt. I am pretty sure that the serious contributors to these articles would be happy to have only one article restored (HHO gas being the best candidate IMO) and its content disputed on the Talk page rather than littered over many Afds and deleted talk pages. Femto makes a good point that not all of these should be restored. IMO having all of the articles restored would only result in more Afds. Note that Institute for Basic Research and Ruggero Santilli were also nominated for deletion without an afd warning being placed on my talk page (at that stage I was the only contributor to each article). John Vandenberg 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked on the talk page and was told to list it like this, with all the articles at once so we can discuss them all at once, since only one or two need to be kept. See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Reviewing_several_articles_at_once. — Omegatron 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Since this is the same issue for all four articles, it's better to discuss it in one thread rather than four. >Radiant< 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion jesus christ people... WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP ... absolutely zero facts involved here. WP:RS are required... there are none. Keep them deleted, salt them, and indef block article recreators as timewasters violating WP:POINT.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:HOAX and WP:MADEUP say don't make up hoaxes and post them pretending to be real articles, not that the encyclopedia can't cover notable hoaxes. Rossami (talk)
  • Did you look at Talk:HHO gas#References ? Please comment on the lack of WP:RS based on those references, of which most were in the HHO gas article at one point or another in between various content disputes. John Vandenberg 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you actually read those guidelines before citing them here? You should. Especially WP:HOAX#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. — Omegatron 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist HHO gas with the limited goal of determining whether this particular hoax is notable enough for a stand-alone article. It's alleged above but I'm not yet convinced. But the article was changed significantly during the discussion and if doesn't appear that the discussion participants noticed the change.
  If this is kept deleted, I recommend unprotection so it can be replaced with an appropriate redirect instead of the {{deletedpage}} template. (No opinion yet on the others.) Rossami (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the lack of non-promotional sources discussing the subject is an indication of its notability. That is no RS are available endorsing or debunking the stuff. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree that there are not many sources available for "endorsing or debunking the stuff", so the article shouldnt attempt to do either. That doesnt prevent an article being written about the claims that have been made, the facts that are known, and the general level of scepticism shown by media and others. This allows readers who hear about these technologies to make their own opinions using more information than is provided by the people making the claims. As an example, if someone was to hear that there was a journal article about this, they would be impressed to find that the journal article really did exist and it is a reputable journal. However they would be less keen on the technology when they learn that Ruggero Santilli has "self-published" the majority of his books and journal articles. We can join those dots by having an article based the reliable sources we have. John Vandenberg 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This subject keeps cropping up, including on TV, and similar things have appeared many times over the decades. And there are other articles that are related and would link to it. As pointed out above, according to WP:HOAX, honest articles about hoaxes are legitimate. Man with two legs 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and provide a chance for re-editing before relisting. (I presume this may result in a partial merge, but I make no assumption about what the merge should be. This is a matter for the editors. obviously some compromises will be necessary.) There are always voices wanting to reject articles on fringe science.

Most know that total rejection of such topics is not likely, and so argue on the basis of N and RS. Given the scientific sophistication of the public, any fringe theory that can obtain some initial publicity usually becomes N, regardless of the absurdity. (there are exceptions where WP is being used in an attempt to get the initial publicity, and these should of curse be rejected).

Given the state of scientific journalism, there will usually be RSs in the form of newspaper articles, which are probably truly RSs for giving the state of public notice and opinion, though hardly RSs for the state of scientific knowledge. Usually there will be RSs from scientists explaining the invalidity, except for some newish ones that nobody thinks worth refuting in a formal way. Sometimes there will be RSs from a real scientist or two supporting the theory; there is no education that prevents peculiarity. The only logical rule is that once it is in the newspapers, then it goes in WP. (I would personally extend this, and say that when it is discussed in several widely-read blogs not originating from the author of the theory, these are also RSs for the state of public notice. )

We really cannot discriminate of the grounds of scientific likelihood, for we are not judges of that any more than we are of religion or politics (and in a practical sense we cannot discriminate because we will rarely be able to achieve more than temporary consensus for what should be included). What we can judge, is what the state of public and scientific opinion is, and what we can be responsible for is accurate reporting. DGG 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close. The request of this deletion review - "to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose" - is outside the scope of the purpose of deletion review. This deletion review invites discussion, the outcome of which could not be "to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose" since such a request is vague (not clear) and ambiguous (could mean different things to different people). Rather than allowing others to waste time on this, speedy close please. -- Jreferee 05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If it helps you focus on the matter at hand, consider this as a deletion review specificly for HHO gas, the most recently and least opined Afd. John Vandenberg 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: This extract from Jimbo's posting about Crackpot Physics from 2003 persuades me that having an article on these topics is not necessary.

(a) if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsense

(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect

(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.

His first point (a) is where we are now, trying to reconcile these ideas with standard science. His option (b) is covered by WP:HOAX, where we are allowed to have articles about famous hoaxes, known to be hoaxes. We are not in case (b) in the present discussion because we don't know it to be a hoax, we just know very little at all. His case (c) presumably describes stuff that fails WP:ATT because it's a single crank. We are not in case (c), the isolated crank, because these are shared ideas, though they are not shared by people who can express themselves well using widely-understood scientific terminology.

Our problem is that there is no reliable secondary literature. I wouldn't trust a summary of this issue unless it was offered by somebody fluent in standard science. We only have documents created by partisans, in other words, we're struggling to parse the primary sources. It's not our duty to create new secondary literature on this issue. After Science publishes their article, or Reviews of Modern Physics, then it's time for us to summarize this material in Wikipedia. That time has not yet come. EdJohnston 01:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In case its useful to others, Jimbo's email lists three articles that were being considered:

• Plasma cosmology, which has many reputable source and still has the {{totallydisputed}} tag
• Dynamic theory of gravity, tagged with {{accuracy}}, and proposed to merge with Nikola Tesla
• Rotating magnetic field, which now redirects to Magnetic field with a section "Rotating magnetic fields"

John Vandenberg 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So we are in (a), but the article should be deleted? Option a is "patched up or rewritten". — Omegatron 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, "HHO gas" is hovering somewhere between (a) and (b); some think it is definitely (b) and nominated the article after some (a) was added. Ed is spot on with their being a lack of "reliable secondary literature" for the scientific concept "HHO gas" (there are a few: [3], but they dont suffice to discredit the science); however there is a great deal of coverage of the idea of "HHO gas" and "Brown gas" and whatever it is that Santilli has written about in his journal article.

In regards to "Brown's Gas", there are a decent number of scholar results, suggesting that we can write an article about it using primarily reputable scientific publications. John Vandenberg 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a scientific journal or textbook; it's an encyclopedia, which means we cover notable things in a neutral way. The topic is clearly notable, so we should cover it. To write in a neutral way, we just say:

Perfectly neutral and reliably sourced. If you want to go further and evaluate the actual claims a little, you can, but it's only here that the secondary scientific literature comes in. If there really isn't any mention of this by reliable scientific sources, we can still make straightforward logical deductions, such as debunking Klein's quotes of a car that runs on water and mentioning similar things like the water fuel cell, linking to the articles about electrolysis products and oxyhydrogen welders that electrolyze water without any bogus gas claims, etc.

Even without scientific literature or logical deductions, we can quote the opinions of people like Randi, who are not reliable sources on science, but notable enough to be sourced as critics. — Omegatron 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Thinking that "common ducted electrolysis" might be a familiar technical term, I did a Google search for the fully quoted phrase. The first two hits are in Noah Seidman's wiki, the third hit is John Vandenberg's draft article! (User_talk:Jayvdb/Denny_Klein). While it is charming to think that Noah's web site and John's User talk are now the world centers of research on this topic, it does suggest there is no strong background in standard science to which this material can be anchored. If all we can do is write a 'He said, she said' article, we are just like journalists who don't understand the science and are merely writing down what people say. I also read part of a William Rhodes paper that I found on the web. While it seems that he does know how to execute some standard lab procedures, his claims for the high burning temperature of his mixed gas are hard to credit, and do seem contradictory, as I think someone else has noted in one of the WP discussions. But a detailed critique of Rhodes's work is another primary source analysis that I don't think is our business. Do you imagine that William Rhodes ever ventured into a university chemistry department to give a seminar talk? Do you imagine he ever tried to collaborate with a recognized combustion lab to see if they could reproduce his claimed results? If he did so, no-one has reported that yet in our WP discussions. What we do know is that he files patents that repeat his wonderful claims. EdJohnston 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead Oceans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was speedy-deleted for lack of notability. I believe it should be undeleted, as subject meets Wikipedia's notability criterion. Dead Oceans is a new record label that is a sister label of two well-established indie record labels: Jagjaguwar and Secretly Canadian. The initial roster of Dead Oceans includes Bishop Allen, an important, previously unsigned band that has a Wikipedia entry. Its creation is a significant event in the musical world. More importantly, although Dead Oceans is new, it meets Wikipedia's notability criterion as a number of significant, independent sources have already written about it, including Pitchfork Media and Austin 360. I'm afraid that, as something of a newbie, I failed to include links to these independent sources in my initial version of the entry, which I suspect is why DragonflySixtyseven performed a speedy deletion for reasons of notability. However, I am convinced that adding these independent, published sources to my entry would make Dead Oceans an entirely appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Please consider undeleting it. It should go without saying that I have no personal connection whatsoever to this record label. BenA 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and possibly list. I'm making no statement on DF67's speedy (although being the label for a bluelinked artist is a worthwhile notability assertion), but there's more than enough here now to consider it on a broader scale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted it as "not yet notable". Given that it was founded in February 2007, and that the article quoted from the press release saying that Dead Oceans WILL feature bold and timeless etc, I felt that the use of the future tense was sufficient indication that Dead Oceans isn't there yet. If you think there's enough for a new article, make a new article. If I agree, I'll undelete the old one for a history merge. DS 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• unhelpfully sitting on the fence Are there multiple non-trivial sources and/or references to verify whether this label is notable. If these can be produced than its worth an article. Otherwise, keep deleted without prejudice to recreation when they are available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources (or lack thereof) are irrelevant when it comes to A7s and assertions of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That depends on your point of view. I see no reason to undelete an article that is going to fail to meet a core tenet such as verifiabilty. Anything that can be sourced is invariably worth having. Articles that cant be sources are invariably going to fail to meet basic requirements and will eventually get deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's really not a POV, CSD is very clear - an assertion is all that's necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, OK. Rereading this and in particular DS's comments, I see that he/she deleted the article because it wasnt yet notable. Jeff's right, that's not what A7 is for - although I have seen a lot of eminently worthless crud removed from the site by stretching A7 in that way. However, Restore and List at AFD is probably the correct way to go now - but if someone can steer me in the direction of the AFD, I'm almost certainly going to argue for deletion in the absence of the multiple non-trivial sources I mentioned earlier. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, don't bother with AfD, redirect to Secretly Canadian (or Jagjaguwar) and grow the section until it's a viable stand-alone article. Can't chide the admin for deleting this because it's really just a presse release, but yeah, offspring of SC/Jag should be mentioned. ~ trialsanderrors 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quantum-Touch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Page flagged for speedy deletion due to reposted content. Content was written fresh from scratch (my first submission ever here). Admin deleted page due to reason "waving magic crystals". I do not believe a new article should be speedily deleted in this instance. See talk:Luigi30 for discussion engaged. First attempt to dialog was simply deleted from talk page. Trane Francks 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn assuming the version written was not spam. The original AfD referred to it being an advertisement, the other deletions were either due to a prod or via G11 - spam. If it's an ad, no complaints, but not if it isn't. Luigi's comment, as well, - "Your page has been deleted six times by several different administrators. That in itself is a criterion for being deleted." - is disconcerting due to its complete misunderstanding of speedy deletion policy, which may play a role here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion. Not only have we debated the concept and found it wanting for independent sources, this article was blatantly promotional - in fact it looks like a copy-paste of a sales brochure. It is entirely referenced from the website selling the concept, and the concept is so self-evidently snake oil that I can't find any credible sources who even bother to debunk it. Finally, a quick Google indicates that Trane may have a conflict of interest here. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Quantum-Touch is one of a family of "modalities" commonly falling under the banner of Energy medicine. Reiki, Qi, qi gong, acupuncture and other approaches to energy-based healing are very much related and, in fact, several articles link back to QT here. I apologize if my article came off as ad copy; I was merely trying my very best to ensure it did not read as first-person spam. Re: Conflict of Interest - if I were a martial artist attempting to pen a solid article on Chinese martial arts, it wouldn't be an issue, right? If there are specific problems with the article itself, I would prefer we deal with those. I'm happy to fix any deficiencies there. Trane Francks 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reiki gets rather more Google hits, and has reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Reiki gets more hits. I doubt that it would be incorrect to presume it is because Reiki has more history behind it. (It was defined in the mid-19th century.) QT does get over 200,000 Google hits, however, and that makes it notable in my opinion. Trane Francks 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Any COI is irrelevant to this discussion - COI does not govern whether material should exist. The discussion from over a year ago never once touched upon sources, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is, however, relevant to discussions of process. The problems with the article are independent of the conflict of interest, and include the fact that it is advertorial. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do believe that my use of terms such as "concepts of Quantum-Touch are claimed to be related to", "it is claimed in the book that" and "techniques are claimed to cover the gamut of emotional and physical issues" decidedly remove any hint of advertising. If you can show me a single point in the article where I state any of QT's claims to be fact, please do. And back to COI - is it actually the case that a participant in a certain activity or sport cannot offer Wikipedia articles on said activities? Understand that I am not a QT employee peddling wares nor am I in any sense "competing" with other healing modalities, I am simply a person who is aware of several forms energy-based healing. I find the lack of a representative article on Wikipedia notable for the simple fact that heaps of directly-related material is available here. If there are issues of tone or delivery in the article, I'm happy to work to fix those. Trane Francks 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that Blatant Advertising point 11 states "an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well". Although I disagree that the article is advertorial in nature, would you please indicate what content you thought to be inappropriate in support of speedy deletion? Also, to address an earlier point, I take exception to your claim that all the information was entirely referenced from the web site. Although I cited the web site to indicate the source of information, other information was taken from the Revised Edition of the book, Interactive Video Workshop DVDs, Supercharging DVDs and Core Transformation DVDs. And re: self-evidently snake oil, I consider both Reiki and Quantum-Touch to be on equal footing there, as both practices were formed from the inspiration of a single person. Since p4 and p11 of the criterion for speedy deletion did not apply for this particular article, deletion was inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trane Francks (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources -> no reason to invalidate the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn The AfD was partially based on lack of ghits, thus demonstrating that there was no general public awareness. There are now 210,000; removing duplicates & directory listings, there are probably about 50,000. Naturally, most of these are mentions of the books on the subject or personal testimonials in blogs. I think that shows N. The books on the subject are probably RSs for what the technique is, though of course not for N, but the ghits do show public awareness & so it is significant.

Significant noticed total nonsense in my opinion, but that isn't a factor. DGG 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)