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 of the debate was: Delete Prodego ^talk 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquygen[edit]

Noteable It seems to me that Aquygen deserves mention, if nothing else. I do not personally believe that "it has to be a hoax" qualifies this article's deletion. It may, if not worded correctly, constitute the disputability of the factuality of the article, however it does desirve mention. If the so called "fact" of the matter that this article is claimed as a hoax by those who are, for lack of a better description, biased ensures its deletion, shouldn't the article on cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion) be deleted/removed as well? What is happening here is that some people feel that it is their duty to subvert any possible hoax rather than allow the mention of notable happenings in our modern time; a hoax is also worthy mention, at the very least as a stub. Xeromem 05:43, 1 Nov 2006 (UTC)

KEEP I am just reporting information here people! Thats all!! So why dont you just delete the article if you are so offended by the scientific information.. Fact is, the US Army and CREDIBLE Sources are looking into the technology. You can view a video produced by FOX news and CNN and other news sources on the Website. Its not pseudoscience. It is a scientific fact that you can verify by contacting Hydrogen Technology Application Inc. They are based in Clearwater Florida. They will provide you with samples which you can take to any Lab in the country to verify. boyohio02 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of pseudoscience-cum-investment-scam that clocks up 100 unique ghits. Mentioned in the news once, apart from that citations are mostly confined to blogs. Not in the same league as mucoid plaque or Blacklight Power, I'm afraid. Dr Zak 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now up to 135 unique ghits. Boy, there is some serious forum spamming going on. Dr Zak 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN, doesn't seem to be backed up by verifiable sources, psuedo-science cruft Hobbeslover 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other users should know that this user Hobbeslover participates in article for deletion discussions all the time (user contributions) and almost always votes in favor of delete (only one that i looked at, out of dozens, was not delete, it was merge). And also I find nothing in his history that suggests he has any experience editting fuel related articles on wikipedia. Seems like a biased delete-first user. --MateoP 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN. Devotchka 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perpetual energy nonsense. THE KING 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced and notable JohnM4402 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a vote. Please show us sources and prove why it is, in fact, notable. Devotchka 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oh brother, what next?! --Charles 05:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I gets zero hits on Google Scholar. Ted 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly all drug companies wait for a patent before publishing the results of their research. Choven

• Delete not notable, unsourced, reeks of scam -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 06:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I did happen to find a November 27, 2005 article from the Tampa Tribune on this topic. There's even a picture, but it still doesn't seem notable at this point. Zepheus 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the report is that I came across. Seems the company is handing out another round of press releases right now, which causes it to bubble up again for a few days. Dr Zak 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to verifiability and low Google score. Good luck though, that would be awesome if it works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Hobbeslover and others. Smells like a hoax. Two general media articles is not enough to establish notability, mass media have fallen for similar hoaxes before. Paddles 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™ Avi 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote the article after seeing it on the local news. It exists. Whether it is real science or not is pretty irrelevant. Creationism has an article. The article notes that some people are skeptical of the claims. This is usually delete-happy wikipedia B.S. --MateoP 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I suggest moving this information (in altered/shortened form) to the Alternative fuel page. There is a category for hydrogen that I think this fits under. The links to the Hydrogen Technology Applications website and news articles [1][2] can be put there if neccessary. I believe this "fuel" exists, but this Aquygen page is probably a little premature. Zepheus 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable/NN. First, searched ChemFinder and found no results. Then, searched through AcademicSearchElite and found an obscure molecular physics study about photofragmentation of H20 and D20, but I think the "HHO geometry" refers not to a compound that is different than water, but a physical arrangement of the atoms that compose water (Title: Photodissociation of Water. II. Wave Packet Calculations for the Photofragmentation of H2O and D2O in the B- band" by Harrevelt and van Hemert. Also, a side note: Article is dated April 1, 2000. Published in the Journal of Chemical Physics). One article in particular, "Pseudoscience today, theater lighting controls, and more" made it sound like HHO is just a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen (2 parts) and oxygen (one part), not a chemical compound with the formula HHO (which is WATER, people!).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Yohe (talk • contribs) . 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BS. Water is a liquid. Water vapor is a gas. Water vapor cannot bore holes through charcoal. HHO gas is a gas. Use your eyes not your mouth (Ethics 101). VIDEO (Houston FOX26): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX6CnNc3CFU&search=aquygen VIDEO2:http://www.wave3.com/Global/Video/WorldnowASX.asp?os=&vt=v&clipid=806337 GOOGLE NEWS: http://news.google.com/news?q=aquygen Kmarinas86 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is another of the articles which cries out for a process wherein they can be "pended" and reviewed after 6 months, to see whether they have lasting encyc. value -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone added a video of a recent report by CNN. Is that a "notable" enough news organization for the deleteaholic wikipedians here? Whether or not this fuel is what they say it is isn't relevant to whether or not it should have an article. --MateoP 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP If it is a hoax it still diserves an article --The_stuart 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This should either be deleted or include a reference to the criticisms common to all Brown's gas variants. -RydDragyn
• Like many here, I've been searching/collecting links to material on Aquygen. http://aquygen.blogspot.com/ While the validity of the claims is not yet established, it seems even if they turn out false, a wikipedia article is warranted if only to say so.
• Delete for non-notability. 205.179.22.178 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.