Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dihydrogen monoxide hoax


 * 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 speedy keep. I'm honestly not sure if this is an April Fools joke or not (it was listed in April Fools/April Fools' Day 2016). Regardless, April Fools Day is over and if this was in fact a serious nomination, it can be closed as obviously frivolous. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. This is not a hoax. This stuff is real, it has killed thousands of people, it has obliterated entire cities, it has done untold damage. We have many existing articles which do a more than adequate job of describing dihydrogen monoxide and its characteristics. To create an article re-hashing the same ocean of data, but from a contradictory WP:POV (this page is a WP:SOAPBOX to downplay real dangers) is a WP:POVFORK and against established policy. Everything the people have been saying about this stuff is true... every word. Do we need another Flint or another Walkerton before we acknowledge that public safety is at stake?

If you disagree with the petition to ban this stuff, fine, that's your perogative... just so long as the encyclopaedia remains WP:NEUTRAL on any specific political measure and factual that DHMO is real and its characteristics well-known and well-documented. As for the risks? This guy has already run the animal experiments and should be considered a reliable source as to what we're dealing with here.

Taking a topic of an existing article, recreating it under a different name (on the same wiki) with "...hoax" added is a clear WP:NPOV violation and a WP:POVFORK. By policy, this article must be drained and stoppered if anyone gives a dam about the integrity, neutrality and accuracy of the project. K7L (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Proposer is forum shopping this proposal (albeit over a long-ish period of time) and has been trying to kill the article or change the name for some time. He just doesn't get it.  He also doesn't seem to understand that when the consensus is reached, it's time to move on.  You can see earlier discussion(s) and also examples of walls of text from the proposer regarding this matter here. This has all been discussed before – the articles was found notable and no better name could be found.  Note : Since there is no proper link to this discussion at the article's talk page, I am pinging those who were involved in the last discussion, and asking, ,  ,  ,  ,     to please comment here.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to Dihydrogen monoxide. Not possible? Delete it to make way for move.  Eye snore  03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This guy proposed splitting this topic a few millennia ago to make way for a move. We're still waiting. Seriously, though, it is not normal to insert WP:POV terms like "hoax" into article titles. Atlantis isn't titled "Atlantis hoax", even if Plato likely intended it as an April 1-style piece. Bre-X isn't titled "Bre-X hoax", even if every WP:RS says they salted the samples. Shakespeare's works aren't given titles like "Merchant of Venice hoax", even if they were intended as theatrical fiction. Dihydrogen monoxide was carefully constructed so that every word in every one of the claims is verifiable and true. Every word. I can't look out at this and claim in good faith that "it never happened". May they rest in peace. K7L (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's deadly all right, if you inhale it. Also, don't we all know that 70% of our body is dihydrogen monoxide? No? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! epicgenius @ 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect with Water pollution Sheepythemouse (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Is this nomination an April Fool's joke? This is an article about the Hoax, not the subject molecule. The subject molecule could have its own article (if such was to follow proper naming conventions).  This is a well known hoax that dates back decades and periodically resurfaces with additional "victims" whose knee-jerk reactions illustrate exactly the effect that the hoax is supposed to have.  A hoax is a hoax is a hoax.  The term is not an "in" joke, as it has entered the general lexicon. The article is sourced and notable – as a hoax.  Please see my comment above.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Support topic ban for K7L with regard to this article and its talk page - For crying out loud. This entire talk page archive is dedicated to this inanity. If that took place on April Fools' Day, too, it would make sense and I would know that this nomination isn't serious. But that the rationale is exactly the same says this is simply resuming the old issue for which consensus is painfully clear. A page-based topic ban seems in order to stop this coming up yet again. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a "not to be taken seriously" banner on this earlier, indicating that it is, as it must be with the silly comments above, a feeble April Fools Joke. I don't see the banner now, so just in case, of course the idea is ludicrous ... Keep - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2016 (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.