Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Side Evaporative Heat Recovery


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 12:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Water Side Evaporative Heat Recovery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research, paraphrased close to, and containing lots of original research. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Delete Mostly Original Research, a COI between the author and some sources cited, close paraphrase of the source. I would support the A11 tag that's been applied as well, as it sure seems to be discovered by the author and little RS to back it up. The sources that are there support things like how evap cooling works, architectural considerations, and the like. Crow  Caw 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete For reasons given above. Also, author also seems to be here to advocate for this technology, instead of merely describing it .  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And they don't seem to be reading anything anyone else is writing. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'd support a delete and salt. I'd also support an A11, my AfD nomination edit-conflicted with the A11 nomination. They're clearly just here to promote their technology/industry, because it helps them as a leader in that industry. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:RHaworth is telling too, where he gets indignant and confirms that he wrote 80% of the Air2O paper which is then used as a source here. Crow  Caw  01:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So they are here with just their own research then? Seems like an A11 to me then. Also, watch for socks- they are suspected of using socks to hinder the deletion of a previous version of this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep it I did not source the other article those 3 guys that i am sure they know each other said i copy it .. i didn't invent this technology I am expert on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeSalem (talk • contribs) 02:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)  — MoeSalem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

i would like you to See some expert on the subject matter not those 3 guys, 1st they try to say its copy righted , and when this didn't work they claim i invented , they are just  doing whatever they can to delete me .. regardless if its right or wrong .. they just don't want any one but them i am speaking about a well known technology that has been in the books since 1962 i have posted 2  articles about it  ONE in USA 2004 and one in Hong kong 2014 ,

1-http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214027520 2-http://investiveprojects.com/documents/whitepapers/EvaporativeCooling.pdf

the article don't mention no company and yet they are trying COI, if the supject matter expert dont talk about what they know , who will some people has no idea about what they are saying Wikipedia is Free Encyclopedia it should  have information about every thing that was the main reason for all this ... but i believe now it is being hijacked with some group of people that they are bias and they only want thier own stuff and no one else ....MoeSalem (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — MoeSalem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment This is the article creator, and on User talk:RHaworth they said "80% of the paper of air2o was my work". Clearly they're lying somewhere, either here or there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 *  Comment the article is my work yes i wrote the article   but its not my technology i didn't invented you just mad because some of admin remove your tag that you but at my page for speedy deletion and they clearly understand that its not my invention   — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeSalem (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)  — MoeSalem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No, if you'd read the first comment I made, it's a non-notable technology, and this article is an essay containing original research, which is true since you've admitted lots of the sources are your research (regardless of whether or not you created the technology). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment are you an engineer, I mean how do you know it non notable , i can tell you how many project in the world using this , how it is original research   this technology in the ASHRAE hand book since 1962   , before i was born and who said what Wikipedia only talking about popular things, this technology is valid vetted documented , so what is the problem for writing about it .. you are no expert in the subject and that's is very clear  why you even tal;king about .. of course you are mad because they remove your crazy claim that I invented this technology or some one I know... did because i brought prove you guys don't like me that's all you and the other 2 guys ..MoeSalem (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — MoeSalem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment may i ask why you want it to be delted it, give your self chance to read , am iItalking about something doesn't exist?MoeSalem (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — MoeSalem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep it  I am an engineer we use this Technology a lot in Singapore I thought the article was very good  it explain  the technology in simple terms Karkz14 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Karkz14 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Karkz14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Comment thank you some one actuality understandMoeSalem (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — MoeSalem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Seems like obvious sockpuppetry to me, I've opened an SPI. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * wow that's just speak of who you are you just bias person and ..you just hate people can do any thing but i am sure there will be sensible admin who can really understand the value of this .. MoeSalem (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's pretty common for people to create an article, and then when it's up for deletion to create multiple accounts to try and save it. And yes, ultimately it is an admin's decision, but no I'm not biased. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think its very easy to prove that if i create this account of not, thats why i am not worry .. i think the technology allow us know now . and yes you are bias , 1st you accuse me that i violate copyright and when this didn't work you accuse me that its original research and when this didn't work you accuse i create different account ... look at  you .. you are bias you just want the article to be deleted regardless ,, you have no logic you have no reason you just bias.. and if i am wrong why are you changing your reasons, why don't you stick with one .. why don't you give your self chance and read it to be fair  but you don't know how to be  MoeSalem (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * may i know why are you saying that, do you people have a logic what is your reason MoeSalem (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep it Please don't delete this kind of article can help the industry in the easiest way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkz14 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Karkz14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*keep itReally good article, its something we actually apply out here in the GCC & becoming more of a trend due to its high enthalpy efficiency & the its cost effectiveness in this region. Good article to create better awareness towards more sustainable & environment friendly approach to recovery.AlenChrist (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — AlenChrist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How has it been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent from the topic itself? Regardless of how useful it may be, or how good the article is, That is the standard that must be met by any article to be included here. Crow  Caw  18:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * yes it has the problem is you and the other 2 guys, you are not an engineer you have no idea what this whole article is talking about your only and single goal is to delete it .. for your info yes it has been in the ASHRAE hand book since 1962 before i was born, energy star website have a whole article about water side cooling , again the problem  is you and the other 2 guys . who doesn't understand any thing about our industry and they just try to impose what they think..... clearly you are bias .. give your self chance and read and may be you will learn something MoeSalem (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've told you what is needed to keep the article. If you do that, then it may be kept. Do you wish to discuss the policies where this article is lacking, or would you rather persist in ad hominem attacks against myself and others, whose backgrounds you know nothing of? Crow  Caw  21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

°1st  it is not your call it will be kept or not , and try to say something that really make sense , i might listen to you.. 1st you have to admit you are not an expert on the subject  matter. this technology is well documented way before i was born, i brought sources what eles i need to do. and if you think you can help.. please do rather than trying to shut me down .. tell me what is the problemMoeSalem (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Keepit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engy ibrahim79 (talk • contribs) — Engy ibrahim79 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closing administrator. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Askandrany1. As I stated there, based on a CU, my strong belief is that all of the new accounts who have voted are meat puppets and affiliated with Air20.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For all of guys you want to delet it have you bother reading the article ..why can't you try to help rather than destroy what he did wrong .. Askandrany1 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For you and your co-workers, why don't you try following any of the suggestions we've given? Such as finding independent sources about this topic -- not just sources for specific claims, but regarding the broader topic in general.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See you mad becuse people starting to say no to you.. You didn't bother read the source it's been givin non by witch any one know any one but its all in you bais mind that's all people trying to cheat .. That's only tell one thing about you and your couple of guys .. Is it coincidence that all of you living in the same part of the world and the people you claim they know each other don't .. Wow .. Askandrany1 (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you seem to be psychologically projecting because you're upset. People tell us "no" all the time, and we delete their articles anyway and block their accounts.  Do you want to join their ranks, or do you want to do things the proper way?  We require independent sources to prevent bias -- you and your co-workers insisting on using your own sources is biased.
 * As for accusations of "cheating," we've repeatedly linked to and explained the site's standards. The site's standards have existed long before you got here and will continue to exist long after you've given up.  You are the one going against them, so you really are in no position to accuse anyone of cheating.
 * I live in South Carolina, User:RHaworth lives in London, and User:Bbb23 lives in California -- to claim that we're living in the same part of the world sounds desperate and foolish. Seriously, the distance between me, RHaworth, and Bbb23 is almost comparable to three people who live in Iran, Japan, and Alaska.
 * Now, do you want to do this like a grown-up professional, or do you want to be dismissed as yet another crank whose work we'll delete? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I add myself to this? I live in Dorset, England, which is about 100 miles from London and nowhere near America. Put simply, this isn't a co-ordination of users against you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia; essentially an essay. The close paraphrasing is also worrying, as are the various single-purpose accounts here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of papers or original thought. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. i brought 4 different sources talking and explaining the same technology and there is no way they could have known each other unless you accusing energy star be in this Global  conspiracy you are clamming   the fact of the matter that you guys know where you exactley lives it just mean you are buddies and one told other come lets try to delete that guy ...

here is energy star 1- https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.datacenter_efficiency_economizer_waterside

and one more company 2-http://www.greenheck.com/media/pdf/manuals/461248HRE_iom_1.pdf

and Texas AM university 3- http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/94661

and USA - India joint for energy study 4- http://cberd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CBERD_3.2PR_004Fab2014.pdf

and research gate Gate 5-http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eloy_Gomez/publication/223700025_Design_and_experimental_study_of_a_mixed_energy_recovery_system_heat_pipes_and_indirect_evaporative_equipment_for_air_conditioning/links/53cfe44f0cf2fd75bc5a044d.pdf

and independent research from hongkong 6- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214027520

and one more company 7- http://investiveprojects.com/documents/whitepapers/EvaporativeCooling.pdf

see the proplem is not in the article or the source or the technology that I present in a very fair way the problem is your ignorance and your buddies by the subject matter but i have news flash for you. 1st its not up to you to delete it or not and i am not giving up, and i am sure like some sensible admin remove your malicious speedy deletion i am sure that some sensible admin who will read and will know that i am not bais and i am presenting a technology in very fair way listing its advantage and disadvantage and i am pining independent source to it MoeSalem (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Four sources isn't enough to pass WP:GNG necessarily, as 4 sources don't show "significant, independent coverage", as required by WP:GNG. Also, this is written as an essay, not an encyclopedic article, see WP:NOTESSAY. Lastly, stop calling people biased, it's a personal attack, and is likely to get you blocked. Also, an admin, has already said it should be deleted, so I doubt you're going to find an admin wanting to keep it. Ignoring the meat/sockpuppetry, there's 1 keep vote from a single-purpose account, and lots of delete votes from established editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Cant you count i listed 7 and  , and you are saying that United stats environmental  protection agency energy star program is not independent and Texas  Am university is not independent  that just tell you how ignorant you are for the subject matter  MoeSalem (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The specific words "Water Side Evaporative Heat Recovery" appear nowhere in the Energy Star source, the Tamu.edu source, the cberd.org source, nor the Research gate source -- and those are the reliable ones. Even the unreliable ones fail to include the exact phrase.  As has been repeatedly explained for you, the source needs to be specifically about this topic, without interpretation or original research.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2015 (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.