Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game?


 * 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. And, I've gone ahead and indef blocked the three obvious socks for disruptive editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game?

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an WP:OR essay and personal opinion of the editor. A nice essay but neither encyclopaedic nor balanced. Should be a part of Condensing boiler  Velella  Velella Talk 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree that it would be good in another article, but only with sources. This doesn't have sources.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a worthwhile article — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohenKapur (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)  — RohenKapur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It is a blog post. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's an advocacy essay. Alsee (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read the Post Script Edit to see what this article is really about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Condensing_Boiler_Technology_-_the_end_game%3FDiogenes Loquitur (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

POST SCRIPT ON THE CALL FOR DELETES

There is a preponderance of delete demands for this article which you think is about Condensing Boilers, ONLY this article is not about that per se, it is about human behaviour insisting on putting profits before ordinary people, and financial interests running with technology notions that have had little or no scientific evaluation. In that regard, it is an article about suggesting that IF you look carefully, the earth goes round the sun, when everyone else agrees the sun goes round the earth. As such it may be a bit unusual at first, I dare  say, in wanting to gather intelligent discussion about  facts that must be in place before ordinary  humans are punished to produce profits. The model par excellence I use is a particularly splendid one that demonstrates all the failures of human thinking (in my whistle blowing opinion). Also probably 5000 early deaths from fuel poverty are at stake, at least. I urge readers to be less damming and more thinking.

Encyclopedia articles do not all have to be about how many parts a car has with labels. This article invites you to explore (putative) manipulation and social extortion, and the Cloak of the Emperors New Clothes. I would like you all to contribute towards uncovering the failures of human behaviour in a key technology, not whether a boiler can condense or not. WP should be more than wrist-watch parts identification for the amateur horologer. I am identifying social structural failure in an elaborate technology that has in my estimation, managed to skip all the really valuable tests, including environmental. So, how did this happen, what can we do, how can we prevent this happening again? In finding how this technology should have been assessed, a blueprint protocol for any new technology to gain meaningful functional and environmental credentials hopefully may be laid down. That is the real article. We can then apply this protocol we have devised for other technologies and gauge their human value. Please help to get the ideas marching forward at that level. I already have plans to get independent tests completed and then report back on what the Energy Section of the European Parliament will say. Those points - and your salient contributions - will form the real body of this article.

Also, try as we might supporters of the argument have not been able to put KEEP on the AfD page. Dozens of pages on how to delete, NOTHING on how to keep. Why is this? Can you put this right so we have a real discussion going, Thanks.Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As suggested on the article talk page, please read WP:GNG . The decision here will be taken on assessing notability (and other things) but notability is the priority to be addressed. Please also read WP:OR and WP:ESSAY to understand why experienced editors are all voting to delete the article.  Velella  Velella Talk 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. On the Notability issue, (WP:GNG) the topic has little precedence because it talks of human factors around technological expansion without regard for social or environmental sustainability/honesty, despite posing as such. There are many psychological issues here, perhaps I can add a section to WP Machiavelli or WP Corporate Duplicity, well I stuck to expand Condensing Boilers. Even the article on Condensing Boilers on WP talks in apologetic platitudes about the technology (sorry). So where can we add notability, is not an easy task.

Yes the article does have an essay quality, but it cites many critical commentary articles  from highly respectable pro-social  newspapers (mostly from The Guardian, which for our international readers is the consistent pro-left serious newspaper of the UK). The article also cites figures - the number of early deaths from fuel poverty created by this technology, the Govt. supplied total deaths in the UK from this category (shameful), the fact that the computations for carbon are five times higher than the sales figures state, and the need to get independent corroboration of carbon output which the Govt. cannot be bothered to do after 15 years+ of this technology, with huge numbers of people  commenting that something is terribly wrong. So we are into Campaign territory now.

And on the no OR (WP:OR) issue, the original Buildings Research Establishment (c.2003, now conveniently disbanded under new private ownership) gives the technology an absolute clean bill of health. We/I disagree with that finding totally with little or no remit. So we are challenging figures already in the public domain. Challenging the stated evidence with human experience in the field over 15 years IS new evidence. If a drug said it did x, but had serious y side effects and never did x as stated, it would be reported back and taken off the prescribe list - a system is in place to deal with problems and failures. NO such system exists for many appliances, including condensing boilers. We need the accurate science performance data which includes sustainability and longevity indicators, and a robust system for reporting problems, We have neither, only c5000 deaths associated with fuel poverty generated by this dreadful technology. And no one is speaking out. Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We hope you can now start to see why this article was put up, it is NOT about Condensing Boilers but the duplicity of humans and how they managed to use condensing technology to totally line their pockets. Whereas other compromised technologies might have some small benefit, condensing boilers are completely devoid of that (cf. conventional boilers) and as such, deserve a special mention in the annals of worthless endeavours. Why not mark this down as the start of a Campaign – The End Game. Why not discuss the components of human greed and failure in a govt. supported technology within an encyclopedia, rather than discuss components of a car in an encyclopedia? Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Personal soapboxing. See Talk:Condensing boiler Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

-Yes with tens of thousands of highly disgruntled end users, a BRE report that is being discredited even by BRE, and one of the largest boiler fitting and servicing firms in the UK confirming our detailed observations which really does amount to substantial and significant case controlled field evidence. Please refrain from your knee jerk slights for a second and consider this as a scientific call to arms to deliver the final much required conclusive studies. I have also requested you do not delete the paragraph we are trying our best to add to the Condensing Boiler page. Please consider the mounting ground swell of evidence. Oppose it by all means but please do not delete it. Thank you Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Keep the article should be preserved because it highlights the problems with condensing boilers such a hugh cost with an environmental hit why are all these people wanting it deleted ?Kapurrb (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Kapurrb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete As a blog post/OR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep this is a very important article with massively important social implications, it should be read and supported by all who have lost out using condensing boilers and that is a huge number. The studies called for must be implemented. Shakespearescript (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Shakespearescript (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.