Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaporized hydrogen peroxide


 * 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   nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) --  RyRy  ( talk ) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaporized hydrogen peroxide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I put up a speedy deletion notice before for lack of context but someone took it down. I see he put up an expansion tag, but I think that it's reasonable to expect that anyone who decides to post an article should at the very least be prepared to have a sentence that explains what the topic is. Three hours after its creation this article still lacks any explanation of what vaporized hydrogen peroxide is, and has nothing more to say about than that it's become more popular for some particular purpose than it used to be. Largo Plazo (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "He" (me!) didn't put up an expansion tag, he merely removed the speedy (according to policy, as a non-concerned editor). The original author had put the hangon up (again, according to policy). Yet again we see an over-hasty attempt to delete a brand new (3 minutes old!) article on an interesting topic, simply because the deletionist can't wait for an editor to finish working on it. I'd also note (entirely without prejudice) that the creator is a wikinewbie who is likely to be unaware of the risks to new articles, and of the necessity of working on them out of main article space first to guard againt this risk. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an interesting topic and I look forward to the creator expanding the article. I have no intention of expanding it myself immediately, as I'd regard that as a rude intrusion onto someone else's efforts. However if nothing happens before the 5 day Clock o'Doom expires and this article has to be deleted in a hurry lest the world ends, then I'll expand it to a defensible state at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and notable topic. Premature atttempt to delete an article during creation, when the AfD proposer speedied it after 3 minutes. Obviously needs expansion, but I have every faith that the creator intends to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Quick google search returns many references to VHP as a new method of sterilization of large volume enclosures, including its ability to disinfect anthrax spores from buildings. Not the best start to the article, but that's reason to improve it, given the available sources. Arakunem Talk 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion proposed. If one wants to get in to content discussions, then a merge to hydrogen peroxide could be appropriate. The creator added a sentence to Hydrogen peroxide which could be improved and Vaporized hydrogen peroxide redirected there or, if there is lots to say, this article can be expanded as far as she or anyone else wants. Its clearly a very common application of hydrogen peroxide and I believe this was rushed and a tad bitey. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly uncommon application of hydrogen peroxide, hence interesting as it's obviously a rapidly growing field of application. As the context of its use is currently topical, then I see this as entirely justified as a separate article (as is High Test Peroxide, for similar reasons). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess our definitions of common-place differ. There's a large amount of literature going back to at least the early nineties on it. Nonetheless, we agree its clearly notable and worthy of an article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to distinguish between a topic worth of an article and an article that ought to be on Wikipedia. I could put up all kinds of articles on noteworthy topics but with inappropriate content, and I would expect the result to be deletion until such time as someone comes back and recreates them with appropriate content. If I hadn't posted these articles, life would go on until someone else created them (or I created them with real content); likewise, no harm is caused by deleting the articles until someone has good content for them. (Recreating an article isn't a hardship!) Newbies can be given helpful information such as WP:First article that will help them prepare some decent starter content that they can come back with to try again. (I've done this before; this would have been a good occasion for me to do this, I admit.) Meanwhile, this keeps Wikipedia clear of all the useless articles that people don't come back to flesh out. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But you didn't offer any help to the new article creator, did you? Instead you worked pretty hard to delete their first article, with all possible haste. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the acknowledgment "I've done this before; this would have been a good occasion for me to do this, I admit" not clear? &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentThe present article is less than an adequate encyclopedic treatment, looking at only one very specific use of the product and references are lacking. Previous commentors claim there are references about this substance and its uses. Please, someone with knowedge of chemistry or of sterilization procedures, go right ahead and improve the article. As it stands, I would recommend a merge to Hydrogen peroxide as a subsection until there is sufficient content to justify an article. As for the AFD, when the topic is clearly not a hoax or vandalism or nonsense, as a Google search would show  in 10 seconds, ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , or a Google News Archive search  , or a Google Book Search  , tagging the article as being in need of expansion is a better course than nominating it for deletion. Three hours is hardly an extreme duration for leaving a new stub article in Wikipedia. Some drawbacks of the process are discussed at. One book which gives more than a snippet view and has substantial discussion is . If someone familiar with the area would add these or equivalnet refs and make the coverage more comprehensive it could be a fine article. Edison (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Go right ahead and improve it". I think we've bitten the creator quite enough for one day. What's the hurry? Let them get on with it. Is Wikipedia in some way damaged by the existence of a non-controversial, appropriate, but unfinished article that clearly has a large audience alredy watching it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just get rid of speedy deletion altogether for no content, little or no context, no evidence given of notability, and blatant advertising, on the grounds that someone will come along and fix them in a trice? There's a good reason for these provisions. As I said earlier, it is hardly too much to ask for it to have occurred to the person creating an article to have something to say to define the topic and establish context; is a person damaged by that expectation? And now, six hours later, this article's author, the individual who you were confident was just on the verge of providing all this context, is nowhere to be seen. So I don't think it was a matter of me cutting him off before he'd had three minutes to fix the problem on his own. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the whole, I doubt we'll ever see the article's creator ever again. After all, if this sort of reception doesn't discourage them, I don't know what would. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, on the issue of contacting the person and giving a fair chance first. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Vaporize What? I don't know how this could be improved. Erik the Red  2    01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as a premature deletion nomination.  Since when do we delete an article not finished the same day?   Edison has provided sufficient references, so the article is a valid stub, and not likely to be deleted when finished. The value of a merge can be later discussed on the talk page after the article is written. I suggest the nom withdraw this, as a sign of AGF in new editors. (I note that when the speedy was placed, the author had a totally irrelevant reference, apparently a mistaken cut and paste--that does go far to justify the original doubt about it; but it was quickly corrected to an appropriate ref.). DGG (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been intrigued by the number of people whose response is directed at something other than the basis originally given for the deletion request. It was never a question of whether the article was finished. It was a question of whether the article fulfills the reasonably established minimum purpose of having article, which is to say what its topic is. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete - I don't really see need for this to have its own article, unless there is a lot more detail to go into, and this use for hydrogen peroxide is already mentioned under industrial uses in the main article on it, though seriously, isn't noming the article only 3 minutes after its creation a little much? 204.83.242.149 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in) Grandmartin11 (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT :: May I take it, from this discussion, that it would now be within Wiki-process to block-nominate articles before they are created, on the basis that we either do not like the subject, or do not think it worthy of Wiki-ing ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC).
 * What i was meaning was "in my (non-chemist) opinion, there is not likely enough to this topic to warrant its own article and it should go in the main article" and added "don't you think you're nominating this in an awful hurry?"Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Grandmartin11, I don't think that's what they meant (or far stronger than they meant anyway). This is a notable topic, but I only know that from outside knowledge, not from the current article. As it stands, it doesn't make an adequate case for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The topic is probably notable and may support an article-length treatment of its own. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hydrogen peroxide. The substance in gas phase is not really different in how it behaves in solution. Anything that is unique about this phase can probably be described in a handful of sentences. --Polaron | Talk 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I went and expanded the article to establish notability. Please re-evaluate this AfD. BTW, for Andy: I didn't want to wait the 5 days, as I think it would be a nice welcome to the original author to get a DYK credit for creating the article. Thoughts? Arakunem Talk 17:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Offer to withdraw motion The article's great now. Thanks, Arakunem. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The hydrogen peroxide article is long as it is. Narayanese (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfD is not cleanup. And even the first version of the article provided useful information about what VHP is and what it is used for. --Itub (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2008 (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.