Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was speedily deleted by Fang Aili per G4. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aquygen
This is a commercial company offering a commercially available product that they claim is based on a new mixture of hydrogen/oxygen. Whether or not the central claims of the company are true or false, having an article serves to inform interested parties that there is a debate regarding it's validity. On that basis alone the article should remain. Those who claim it is based on pseudo-science have the same opportunity to refute the claims as those who believe in the validity of the claims. Deleting this article serves no purpose whatsoever. Having an article allows disagreement to exist. Funny how a book burning always involves bringing someone else's books to the bonfire.

Additional thought: those who feel the claims are invalid have the opportunity to have the products tested independently in a lab of their choice. Contact the manufacturer for details. If you feel the product does not do what it claims, then your beef at least in the USA is with the Federal Trade Commission. www.ftc.gov

Deleted Befere, psueoscience with no evidence. LinaMishima 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Boyohio02 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Old debate is still around as I'm new at this and I can't simply comment into source to remove it until someone helps :/ Please help LinaMishima 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved this nom to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)" to remove old debate, original debate is available here. BryanG(talk) 04:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And in the future, you can do this on the original AfD template by listing it as Aquygen (2nd nomination) . Ruaraidh-dobson 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP I am just reporting information here people! Thats all!! So why dont you just delete the article if you are so offended by the scientific information.. Fact is, the US Army and CREDIBLE Sources are looking into the technology. You can view a video produced by FOX news and CNN and other news sources on the Website. Its not pseudoscience. It is a scientific fact that you can verify by contacting Hydrogen Technology Application Inc. They are based in Clearwater Florida. They will provide you with samples which you can take to any Lab in the country to verify. All information is cited and sourced.Boyohio02 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Advice: "offended by the scientific information" please check that any scientific information is valid rather than psuedoscience with no basis in fact before making such statements. Otherwise they fail to help your case. LinaMishima 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please add yopur thoughts at the bottom of the page. This makes following the dicussion much easier. LinaMishima 05:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Old article appears to be basically the same content. Not certain, however, and a debate has alreay begun, so not changing formally to speedy delete. More reasons in the old debate log. Many thanks to BryanG for saving my hide! LinaMishima 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR etc. --Peta 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: advertising, OR, and so forth. Byrgenwulf 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy, WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:VANITY, WP:CORP. See also Brown's gas. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this scientific advance appears to have ramifications in the field of bollocks purification. Ruaraidh-dobson 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete most likely spurious.--RMHED 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are many well sourced articles in Wikipedia on the use of alternative fuels and hydrogen fuel that explain all this very clearly. There are a lot of companyies trying to cash in on people's desire to believe there is an alternative to fossil fuel. Jacks 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment People still don't seem to be grasping the content of this article. Regardless of your individual view on alternative energy. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept of hydrogen technology, alternative fuels or its implications, you are neglecting the fact that the gas is a real substance, which has already been created by Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. and tested by governmental agencies. This is a new gas containing both H2 and O2, as cited by a scientific journal.  For individuals to be "voting" on whether or not this article is a fake, is to deny the completely factual information presented in the article.  You can verify this information via the US Patent Office. Patent application number is: 20060075683.  You can also consult the various media sources outlined in the section of Sources used for the article. For verification of the information I suggest you call the media who reported on the story including CNN, FOX news and NBC. But for people to be Blindly suggesting that the article be deleted because the haven't heard of the technology or they dont agree with the technology is obsurd and wrong.  That would be like saying we should delete an article on abortion because people are offended by it. Do some research on the topic prior to suggesting an article be deleted.
 * All the links are either at youtube (that paragon of scientific truth) or http://hytechapps.com, which looks like an advertisment. Oh, and there's a patent application, too. Not a patent, which might be notable. An application. No "scientific journal". I'm sorry, but this makes the needle on my bullshit meter just fly into the red zone. Ruaraidh-dobson 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Boyohio02 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no reputable scientific sources for this information, and no notability simply as a pseudoscientific claim either. Rohirok 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, youtube is not a scientific journal. --PresN 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually Ruaraidh-dobson, It is listed in scientific journal. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9, August 2006, Pages 1113-1128. The link is right in the article had you bothered to look for it. I have all the links to the media sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, NBC Affiliate WAVE TV of Louisville Ky) listed if you took the time to actually look through the entire article you would have found that. If you dont have time to look through the article to find the sources, here are the direct links for you to view.    . So if you want to call it "bullshit" thats fine with me, you are entitled to your opinions, but you cannot deny that it is in scientific journals, and also reported on by the Major News Networks.
 * Delete It is not the province of the self-appointed Wikipedia deletion militia to decide the truth or falseness of new developments in science and technology, only to decide if the article has a noteworthy subject and verifiable documentation. Leaading scientists of the day look really stupid now for scoffing at demonstrations of Hertzian wave production by Thomas Edison and David Hughes in the 1870's, and leading newspapers scoffed at Robert Goddard's ideas of rockets in space, and the electrical transformer was derided as a perpetual motion machine by the patent office. When the promotors of the device publish all details, science, being self correcting, will or will not replicate their findings. Subjectively, it seems unlikely to me that this is a newn energy source. A new energy source using water as its raw ingredient is certainly newsworthy, but a feature on tv is not a very well refereed verifiable source. Nor is "being looked at by the government." Local stations will run any absurdity to perk up ratings. No Wall Street Journal or New York Times article? Nothing in a book from a reputable publisher, or a refereed scientific journal like Nature? A gas that FreeRepublic said appears to be Brown's gas or water vapor?  Come back when you have references to other than your own press releases, your own web sites,  and "patent pending" claims. Of course there are several well known scientific errors, frauds, and hoaxes in Wikipedia, labelled as such. See polywater, n ray, cold fusionPhiladelphia Experiment,Perpetual motion (including several patented "free energy motors'"). So this product being water vapor or Brown's gas does not prevent it having a Wikipedia article, but not one at this early stage which can be cited for promotion purposes.Edison 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not promoting anything. I just heard about this story on the news, and I looked it up on wikipedia to find out more information.  When no wiki article was found, I decided to do some research and create an article on the topic.  I had no idea it would create such a unwarranted controversy.  I am not affiliated in any way with Hydrogen Technology Applications, so I reject the notion that I am trying to promote them. I simply want to be objective and report the truth as it is currently known.  I dont understand why people believe that this article should be deleted when the information in the article is factually based. I have outlined the sources of the information. I am reporting on what I have found in the news articles and on the scientific journal which I posted above.  Regardless of the positions of others on the scientific data, I have done all the things that are required for the article.  I have fully researched the topic, I have posted the scientific data, I have cited all my sources of that data, and I have included links to credible media sources.  I dont know what else I can do to prove that this is not something I just up and decided to make up to fool people. It seems to me that the people who are recommeding deletion have some sort of unknown agenda to keep this information from being viewed on wikipedia. If there are other reasons to delete this article I would love to hear them, otherwise, I think that Edison is right, people are just acting as "self-appointed Wikipedia deletion militia to decide the truth or falseness of new developments in science and technology". boyohio02 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.