Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HHO
Was deleted in process in August 2006, see Articles for deletion/HHO Gas and deletion reasons there. Please also compare Brown's gas and Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination) and further references given there.

User:Nseidm1 editing/re-creating these articles may be in a Conflict of interest.

Everything salvagable from these articles which is in consensus with standard chemistry can be treated in Oxyhydrogen (= de:Knallgas), the standard chemistry and engineering term.

Pjacobi 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between Brown's Gas, HHO, and Oxy-Hydrogen. This page is pertinent to establish the difference between HHO and Brown's Gas. There is absolutely no relation between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen therefore the merger would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic at hand. Of course I have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia has lacked real substantive information for too long on these topics, and I am happy to be part of rectifying this defficiency. Noah Seidman 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The only reason a conflict of interest should be a reason to not allow a user to contribute to a topic is if the user's conflict of interest is expressed in the material contributed. It is clear that my contributions are not for promotional purposes as my only intent is to share information and portray topics as they rightly deserve. Noah Seidman 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What information? There's not a single cited reliable source in the article.  ColourBurst 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or maybe merge/redirect Not a single citation in the article, so all we have is apparent original research. Something as vastly counter-mainstream-understanding as this topic really needs many verifiable and reliable external references to even consider it to be kept IMO. There's nothing in HHO that explains how it's different from Brown's Gas. It states that it is different "conceptually", but that for practical purposes it is described as being essentially the same actual thing. Phyisical things aren't concepts: if HB and BG are not distinguishable by any describable means, are they really different things, or could one be mentioned in a sentence in the other's page? Otherwise we'll just have two pages full of the same debunking. DMacks 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: Conceptually means the fundamental working! Practical means what does it do, how does it work? I see no rational in these comments for deletion. If a logical argument was made, it wouldn't come as a reason to delete it would come as an addition to the article. Noah Seidman 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like then there should be a page about that novel concept, not a page for a specific application of it that only mentions the concept in passing and mostly describes that application as being the same as something else. DMacks 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unreferenced bollocks. Dr Zak 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteNot that much better than what was deleted 3 months ago. Edison 20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to all above, ugly POV. It implies "The creator of this is a genius", of all things. And "Gross Misconceptions"? Flawed attacks?!? -Amarkov blahedits 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced, unverified, non-NPOV original research. Wikipedia should provide articles on non-mainstream science when it is notable in popular culture, backed by someone with a significant scientific reputation, or generating significant controversy.  This is none of those things.  It comes across more as vanity than anything else. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: unreferenced, original research, and just plain odd. -- The Anome 01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & above Vsmith 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsubstantiated, not to mention patently impossible


 * 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.