Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas


 * 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 delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

HHO Gas
WP:OR, WP:HOAX, see Articles for deletion/Aquygen and Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination). This is simply another rehash of another Brown's gas that tricked the local media with smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. Sertrel 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even after CrazyRussian's modifications, I still maintain my nomination for deletion, and I agree that perhaps it should be WP:SALTed as well, since Brown's gas hoaxes will constantly re-emerge. On second thought, I propose a compromise. Since we all agree that this is a Brown's gas hoax, why don't we just make this a redirect to Brown's gas? We can even protect the redirect. We could even do the same for Aquygen. boyohio02, would you find this acceptable? Sertrel 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I appreciate the idea to redirect the article, however, the only problem with the above said compromise is that HHO Gas is not a Brown's gas. This was reported in the cited sources of Santilli's International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Paper, and the Company website science page.  So I think that would be an even more misrepresentative change to redirect people to the Brown's Gas page than to keep the original page. boyohio02  18:37 2 August 2006  (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with the above. Probably merits a speedy delete. --Brianyoumans 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)  Update: As requested, I have reviewed the reverted article and considered the arguments below.  I still think HHO Gas itself is a hoax; the only question is, is it a sufficiently notable hoax to need its own page? (Aquygen gets only about 900 google hits.)  And would the authors be satisfied with a rewrite that made it sufficiently clear that this was notable only for being a fraud or delusion?  I doubt it.  I still vote for deletion. --Brianyoumans 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)  Further update:  I would oppose a redirect to the Brown's gas page.  I don't think the Brown's page is very good either. --Brianyoumans 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per voting at other Afd's. tmopkisn tlka 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep. Per removal of duplicate material and several comments by other users. tmopkisn tlka 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and other afd histories. Can something be done about the other articles, such as Oxyhydrogen flame or the HHO redirect?  I admit to being unclear about the process.  Tychocat 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete please, and possibly salt, since these articles seem to spring up like mushrooms after a thunderstorm. Byrgenwulf 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (Still delete after the reversion mentioned below, because the concept is still bollocks, whether it's promoted by a dodgy group or not. Byrgenwulf 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment: I have reverted the reposted Aquygen stuff to a pre-Aquygen version, which obviates most or all concerns of the nom. Please re-evaluated your votes accordingly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rehash of Brown's gas. --Christopher Thomas 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is the second article relating to new hydrogen technology which has been recommended for deletion. There is obviously an unknown but disturbing agenda at work here.  This is user intimidation.  There is no excuse for what is being done to me.  I have worked long and tireless hours working on this article, finding sources for the information, discussing both sides of the issue to ensure article neutrality, citing all sources used, ensuring that the sources are credible reliable and verifiable. I have studied this subject extensively to ensure accuracy.   IF this page is deleted, I contend that it has been done so based not on sound wikipedia policy, but on personal disagreement with the article's ideas and facts. This represents what may only be described as user intimidation and bullying. I have also studied the rules and guidelines for Articles for Deletion (AfD) and this article does not meet the criteria for deletion.  I will not be silenced by intimidation tactics by both users and administrators of this website.   I have not committed any infractions or violations of the wikipedia policy, and my article does not deserve to be discredited and deleted as though the article which was written is my own personal view.  The article is not original research but a compliation of information gathered from multiple credible and verified cited sources. boyohio02  18:00 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional detailed explanation was moved to the AfD talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as complete bollocks Mr Stephen 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep The company responsible for this Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. has had research funding from several investors since 2000. Financial reports can be found through a simple google search. There apparently are several patents filed with the USPA for an engine claimed to generate this gas, although that is no guarantee that the technology is viable. I do however find it hard to believe that a "hoax" company would remain viable for so many years without one if its investors asking pointed questions. E.G. UTEK (a UK based company) claims 10% in Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. and is currently listed in NASDAQ and the NYSE. One would imagine that any company, whose goal is to make money, making such an investment would expect a return or at least evidence that a return was probable. Innocent until proven guilty. If you can't disprove the claim then the logical response would be wait to see if they can prove it.User:Anon 13:37 2 August 2006  (UTC)
 * This is User:66.60.182.8 (talk • contribs)'s first edit.


 * Delete No need to help the hoaxers. It would make sense to have an article if it were a notable hoax, but any notable information is already covered in Brown's gas. JoshuaZ 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and burn. WP:HOAX.  Heck, it's WP:BALLS!  Lazybum 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It will be funny to see if all the people here are either a) correct in their assumption that this is a hoax, or b) wrong and made to look like fools when they are driving down the street in their aquygen powered cars.. lol. Time will tell.. boyohio02 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brown's gas, which even includes some information on Aquagen. - RPIRED 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I could stand a redirect to Brown's gas but, since these charlatans are trying to pretend that this isn't Brown's gas, it seems to me that a delete (and at this point, a enthusiastic salting with some flaming Brown's gas) would seem justified. Dipics 13:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ceremoniously blast this page with dynamite per WP:HOAX. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AS per the previous statement regarding "blasting" the page with dynamite per WP:HOAX. From the Official Wikipedia Policy: ''Verifiability, not truth One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by'' reputable publishers. ''The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.''

''"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth''.

Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications ''and check community consensus Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed''.

''Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.''

The article which was reverted and removed addressed those uncertainty and controversy. Viewing the history will show the added section on the controversy. The Reputable Publishers and Reliable Sources provided are for Verification purposes only. I cannot confirm the findings of these sources, and as it is stated, that would be original research, and that is discouraged. As per the peer-reviewed scientific publications, I have listed that journal as the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9, August 2006, Pages 1113-1128. and specifically at the following website. | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006 and | International Journal of Hydrogen Energy- Full Article

boyohio02 00:30 5 August 2006 (UTC) this is a working link for the interviews
 * Speedy delete! - With the exception of the last link (which is to a web forum thread), and a link to a Pdf file that has nothing to do with the topic, all of the other links come up as "not found". This is a hoax, the stuff added above this comment being added by the IP user who inserted this article, and apparently has vandalised elsewhere (see User_talk:24.159.119.10). -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point of Reference: This is the last comment I am going to make regarding this Subject!  At some point when this technology is more readily available and becomes common knowledge, The article will be rewritten anyway so If its deleted, so be it...  Therefore I am not going to waste my time with people who believe that EVERYTHING about this gas is a HOAX.  I am however going to state for the record that this is in fact a real product. You can argue that this gas may NOT be a Revolutionary New form of Energy, but NOT That this is a Real Product.  You can call up Donald Wann with The Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky (a state employer) and ask them if they are using HHO Gas, They will tell you Yes.  I called them and confirmed this.  Fact is that HHO Gas is being used in commercial applications.  The overwhelming reason that this article was submitted for deletion was on the basis that it is a HOAX.  I submit that if that is the case, I have been fooled by one of the most Elaborate and Expensive Hoaxes in history!!   For anyone who is interested in more information, please view the following video from Google Video.  It is 15 minutes long, and there are interviews with credible people about their use of HHO Gas.  |Google Video - Approx. 15 min  You can also download the powerpoint presentation provided by the Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky. | Powerpoint Presentation by Fulton County School District  and Here | News Article from Fulton County School District

Keep

Opinion, opinion, opinion, stay away from opinion, stick to deletion criteria.

Ronald A. Knight guest.

I say KEEP KEEP KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot believe that here at WIKIPEDIA there are those who cannot follow simple research protocols such as following simple LINKS! I believe that the videos, and testimony speak for themselves! If you REALLY think this is a hoax, why don't YOU call the company, get references, etc. and find out for yourselves!

Ernest Cann-editor-THE SONS
 * 1st contrib - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this, it's a total hoax, this is the kind of stuff that makes people question wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Streveln (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I must mention that this is the user's 1st contribution, even though I do agree with him/her. --Lazybum 18:21, 7 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.