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. Interesting debate, but ultimately very little of it pertains to the bio in question. This decision to delete the bio on Denny Klein is based on a lack of independent assertion of notability and is without prejudice to creating articles on the technology—whether the technology is valid or not (and my take on this is that it is not—reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion claims in its combination of science, scientists and lack of verifiable and independently reproduced results). I will make the deleted material available if someone wants to pursue a neutral article on any of the rest of this. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Klein[edit]

Delete This fails policy on several levels.

Notability: Google returns 769 hits on this person.[1]
Most likely a hoax,[2] see discussion on AfD's below (point 4).
Violates WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM
Numerous articles that did not survive AfD in the past are recently recreated as redirect to this page.[3] Sounds like this is done to circumvent previous AfD's. Please, include the following articles (redirects) in this AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas - HHO Gas-[4] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO - HHO-[5]-[6] - Hho-[7] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen - Aquygen-[8] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination) - Brown's gas-[9] - Brown's Gas - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond - Magnecular bond Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another deleted article.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this article has already been deleted twice!.[10]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent recreation. Edison 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted because Wikipedia clearly has no person qualified nor knowlegable enough on the topic to make it compliant with Wikipedia standards. Although HHO, Brown's Gas, and Oxy-Hydrogen are viable and scientifically published technologies, this article does not represent the underlying science. This article should be deleted to maintain the scientific credibility of Wikipedia unless due dilligence and significant scientific investigation is conducted on the part of editors with regard to HHO, Brown's Gas, and Oxy-Hydrogen technologies. 24.193.218.207 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the underlying technology involved here is "common ducted electrolysis", which produces the allotropes of hydrogen and oxygen, an article should be created to especially show the distinction with Oxy-Hydrogen. Common Ducted Electrolysis is pure science and has no spam, and much third party citation ranging from academic publication to patent application dating back to the 1960's. 24.193.218.207 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, obvious keep:
1. The Google test is not a measure of notability. "Dennis Klein" water gets 3,000 results, for instance. He's been featured in several televised news programs and his "invention" featured in scientific journals. This clearly meets our notability criteria.
2. Um... "most likely a hoax" is not even close to a criteria for deletion. We have lots of articles on hoaxes, and for good reason. If you think it's a hoax, help me keep the article neutral and accurate. If you don't think we should cover hoaxes, you're going to have to protest more generally.
3. Not criteria for deletion. If you think the article needs work (it does), help work on it. Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process.
4. The fact that several Wikipedia articles have been created and re-created about this subject (and inappropriately deleted) demonstrates significant notability, if you ask me. Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article. I think the related information should all be contained in one or two articles for maintainability purposes. An article about the hoaxer himself is a pretty neutral way to present it, though other possibilities can be discussed on the talk page. — Omegatron 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (updated 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The article itself is not a hoax. It is a verifiable article about a well documented hoax. Doczilla 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand how to read chromatography graphs? If you have any questions about the graphs write me a private message and I will explain them to you. This technology is clearly not Oxy-Hydrogen therefore it is not a hoax, understand the chromatography graphs and you will begin to understand why fuel enhancement is a viable technology. While HHO is manipulative, because it is Brown's Gas, Brown's Gas itself has been around for decades and is the allotropes and isomers present in the chromatography graphs. Do what you want with the article, but the chromatography graphs are the end all be all means of proving, showing, and rationalizing why HHO, Brown's Gas, Rhodes Gas, Green Gas, and Hydroxy (which are all the same gas) are not hoaxes and are simply the result of a common ducted electrolyzer design. 24.193.218.207 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who made the chromatography graphs? Which journal were they published in? — Omegatron 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Hydrogen Energy Technology, published by controversial physicist Dr. Santilli. Although the manuscript is a complete crock in its assertion that HHO is somehow not Brown's Gas, the data is some of the first scientific material ever published in a peer review jounral about common ducted hydrogen and oxygen gases.24.193.218.207 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact chromatography graphs have been extracted from the article and published on the website listed in the references section of the "Denny Klein" Wikipedia article. Check out those graphs, they clearly show that the result of common ducting is not just H2 and O2. Oxy-Hydrogen is only pure H2 and O2, therefore because of the different molecular configurations (proven by chromatography and published in peer review), common ducted hydrogen and oxygen cannot be Oxy-Hydrogen. If you want to get into schematics, technically common ducted hydrogen and oxygen contains Oxy-Hydrogen, because common ducted hydrogen and oxygen does indeed contain predominantly H2 and O2, but because of the existence of H5,O5,H1O2,H1O4,H2O4,H2O2, and a variety of other molecules it simply cannot be stated factually that common ducted hydrogen and oxygen is Oxy-Hydrogen.24.193.218.207 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact name of the Scientific Peer Review Journal, and the published volume, issue, and date are: The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9 , August 2006, Pages 1113-1128 24.193.218.207 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact on the website where the chromatography is published the graphs are actually on a page titled "What is Brown's Gas?". 24.193.218.207 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how respectable it is, but that looks superficially to be a real peer-reviewed journal. That paper actually discusses the actual "HHO gas" created by this company, compares it to Yull Brown's gas (which is said to be distinctly different), and includes links to Denny's company website. Regardless of whether it's a truly reliable source, this is another major notability point. Here's a proper reference:

Santilli, Ruggero Maria (August 2006). "A new gaseous and combustible form of water". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 31 (9): 1113–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006.

— Omegatron 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, you are probably the first Wikipedia editor to actually pursue this technology scientifically. Your current edit to the article is professional, not biased, and scientifically accurate. You have clearly expressed what is stated in the academic article, and have taken into consideration information that is obtainable from other notable sources; simply well done. I am happily in a stupor. On a side note, since you have absorbed this HHO crock, you will be happy to know that the only reason HHO is claimed to be different than Brown's Gas is to avoid the stereotypes associated with Brown's Gas. Although there is no peer review article that directly states the clear and obvious link between HHO and Brown's Gas, it will emerge publicly over time. As the HHO article published chromatography a simply chromatography test of Brown's Gas will reveal consistent quantities of particular molecular masses establishing an emperical link between so called HHO and traditional Brown's Gas. HHO is simply the most current effort to take Brown's Gas technology to the next level, as it has been around for decades in a stalemate with the status quo. Please uderstand Omegatron, this technology is simple, Oxy-Hydrogen (H2 O2) is produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer, Brown's Gas (allotropes, ect...) is produced in a common ducted electrolyzer; it is this simple design criteria that dictated how the molecules in the product hydrogen and oxygen form. 24.193.218.207 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not absorbing anything. I saw the Fox news program being passed around the net and thought "BS. Another 'invest in my water powered car!' hoax. I wonder what Wikipedia says about this." It didn't say much of anything because these people are trying to delete any articles related to it instead of writing neutral scientific ones.

I'm quite surprised to find that anything related to this guy has actually been published in a real journal, so now I'm doubly curious, and I'm trying to figure out what his company actually claims and what is actually happening. — Omegatron 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look over www.waterfuelconverters.com. 24.193.218.207 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of this is the wrong damn argument. This is not the place to debate to what degree Denny Klein's claims are truthful or fraudulent. Is his story noteworthy and verifiable? For AfD, we don't care if his claims are verifiable. We care if it's verifiable that he made those claims at all and to what extent they influenced others. Whether he pulled a hoax or not, the fact that he made said claims is not a hoax. You can truthfully report that someone else is suspected of mistruth. Doczilla 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you misundertand wikipedia. I am not denying X said Y. The point is X can make the claim he wants to yet there is no independent scientific article supporting that claim. SO, if we allow every claim to be made on Wikipedia, which through lack of RS cannot be refuted we automatically allow blatant advertising for any scam available. Further, the fact there is a very limited number of Ghits we can conclude that this person is also failing notability. Unless you can provide independent sources (other than simply mentioning its existence, or the overt promotional sites currently used) either supporting or debunking its credibility we fail WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's made claims on several televised news broadcasts, and an independent physicist has made claims about his device in a scientific journal. Seems perfectly notable to me. — Omegatron 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, without prejudice as to whether the subject is a scientist or a charlatan. This person does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:PROF, because I cannot find two independent sources to rub together. The only reference given in the article which seems to be independent of the subject, and not a result of self-publicity, is the paper from the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. That paper focuses on a device developed by HTA Inc. and the associated scientific principle on which is is alleged to function: it is not substantially about Denny Klein and its author, Ruggero Santilli, is himself not notable according to our standards. I can find no other independent sources in support of the subject's notability. — mholland 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, because you haven't bothered to look for independent coverage, it doesn't exist? The primary criterion of WP:BIO is:

primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person

This is easily met by the coverage in CNN (WTVT?) and Fox News television broadcasts [11], articles in the Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, WAVE 3 local news, etc.

Even if he himself is not notable, his company and the "HHO gas" certainly is, so that article should be re-created if this one is deleted.

Santilli is notable if he meets any one of the criteria on WP:PROF, including the origination of an important new concept (valid or otherwise), and publication in refereed journals with subsequent citation. It looks like he fits this pretty easily, and deserves his own article. — Omegatron 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have taken offence. Please don't. And please don't assume that I haven't looked for sources establishing notability. I'll admit, I didn't stretch to searching FOX News. The newspaper articles you've linked to all seem to be the same story retold, and I believe (with as much authority as my own journalistic hunches may carry with the closing admin) that they are essentially obliging pieces in response to self-publicity on Klein's part.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, when you say that "Even if he himself is not notable, his company and the "HHO gas" certainly is, so that article should be re-created if this one is deleted". My secondary concern is that this article is about Klein's company and his fuel source, thinly masquerading as a biography. Look at Template:Biography for the sort of thing that a biography should include; then compare with Denny Klein. There's almost no biographical material there at all (the unavailability of which tends to confirm my assessment of his notability). I infer from the nominator's comments above that this article is being used to shelter material which has been deleted by community consensus - that's poor form, but I'm still not basing my opinion on that. I remain of the opinion that this person is non-notable.

If you would like to see one of those other articles undeleted, then move for a deletion review. It's not relevant to my assessment of Denny Klein's notability. Best wishes — mholland 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just shown you how Klein and Santilli meet the notability criteria. We should put the other articles up for deletion review, as well, as they would be the most appropriate place for most of this information. — Omegatron 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. Please note that those claiming this is not an advertisement for a scam are and have been involved in editing this article. Further, they have recreated articles as redirect which through consensus had been deleted. All non-involved editors seem to think this should be deleted for violating WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SPAM, WP:BIO, WP:PROF.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing us of being part of a scam? — Omegatron 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply merely observing 1 there is no non-promotional source discussing this person, 2 contrary to consensus you (among others) recreated several articles as a redirect and this article was recreated although it too has been deleted twice, despite the fact that deletion occured based on the exact same arguments as I used for this nomination, 3 there is a limited number of editors on this article who comment here to keep.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown above that there are many reliable sources discussing this person. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

Are you trying to claim that creating a redirect is the same as re-creating an article? Are you trying to claim that re-creation of deleted articles is prohibited? It's not. Our deletion policy clearly says, "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article."

??? One of the article's editors has voted "delete", while another (me) has voted "keep". No one else commenting here has ever edited the article. How is this important or relevant? — Omegatron 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who says that this technology is a Hoax has clearly not pursued due dilligence. Frankly its disturbing how the general public subscribes to the prevailing stereotype without conducting an investigation prior to making conclusions. This is the very reason why the status quo in America is practically impossible to change. Omegatron has conducted due diligence and has uncovered one of the more recent peer review publications on the topic, albeit there are not many, and most only indirectly reference Brown's Gas and HHO, but the simple fact that the editors of the peer review journal chose to accept the material for publication deems the technology to have a certain degree of merit. Frankly the chromatography is the smoking gun for the credibility of the technology. Obviously the information currently contained within the article clearly does not belong in a Bio, but the information is indeed credible, verifiable, and peer reviewed. I personally have voted delete because there is simply no one editing this article other than myself and Omegatron. I strongly urge anyone that does not understand this technology to at least review the chromatography posted on the Sanilli article exerpt @ waterfuelconverters.com . Also anyone who believes this technology is a hoax do review waterfuelconverters.com thoroughly and you will clearly see that the technology is currently being installed for fuel enhancement applications across the USA in very public applications including commercial diesel trucking enhancement, personal vehicle enhancement, and power production facility enhancement. 24.193.218.207 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason that Nomen Nescio has labeled this technology a hoax, is why this technology has not progressed publicly for the past 40 years. This technology has been around since the 60's, and electrolysis has been around since the early 1800's and is barely used in viable applications other than Oxy-Hydrogen torches and chemical production systems. I would like to clarify something. Electrolysis is less, way less, than 100% efficienct therefore the hydrogen and oxygen output has less energy than the input. If you put in 100 watt-hours, and the electrolytic cell is 80% efficient, you get 80 watt-hours of energy output in the hydrogen and oxygen. Who in their right mind would rather use the hydrogen and oxygen rather than the electricity directly, as it is more efficiency to use the electricity directly rather than convert it into hydrogen and oxygen. The status quo is that making hydrogen and oxygen is futile because it will have less energy than what is input (this is 100% correct, the dam status quo is correct). But because the general public cannot think past what is put right in front of their close minded shallow faces this is where they stop. Hello everyone, welcome to the idea of on-demand (no storage, produce it then use it) fuel enhancement. Produce hydrogen and oxygen, but not use it by itself because of energy lost due to efficiency, and use of the hydrogen and oxygen as a carbon fuel enhancer. This is viable, as because Brown's Gas and HHO has fancy molecules other than just H2 and O2, when used as a fuel enhancer there is a direct BTU contribution and a catalytic effect. Because of this dual effect the concept of fuel enhancement is indeed viable, marketable, and emerging extremely quickly in light of carbon fuel prices and the consequences of pollution emissions. Why use only carbon fuel when you can mix in a quantity of hydrogen and oxygen to make the same quantity of carbon fuel release more energy, burn more completely, and produce less emissions. I feel like I have to spoon feed the concept of fuel enhancement to the general public. I sooooo deeply appreciate the due diligence of Omegatron, and its time for some other Wikipedia editors to put in the time and effort that is required to understand the technology. There is no excuse for perpetuating stereotypes. Grow up people, don't subscribe the the status quo, investigate, research, and make your own decisions. 24.193.218.207 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Nescio actually said "this is most likely a hoax". Most likely? What does that mean, is that your opinion or are you repeating what you have seen. Have you investigated the tech? Have you read the Santilli article? Have you seen waterfuelconverters.com? Such an ambiguous statement implies that you have done nothing except make an "unsubstantial" statement. What proof do you have that "it is most likely a hoax"? The word of other people? What other people? What was their claim? What was their proof? Where was the claim posted, on a forum? 24.193.218.207 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to this discussion. Please stop cluttering up this page with stuff that belongs on the article's talk page. — Omegatron 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, ok. 24.193.218.207 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE: This article should be kept, as it describes something possibly notable and verifiable, but the article is about his Hydrogen process, not the person, so it should be moved so that the title of the article reflects the process. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HHO gas was deleted. I would be in favor of this content being in an article like HHO gas or Common-ducted electrolyzer or electrolysis welder or something. See Talk:Denny_Klein#Related_articles_deleted_along_with_their_history — Omegatron 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page I mention that Electrolyzer Welder as being appropriate, but Common Ducted Electrolyzer also expresses the main distinction with Oxy-Hydrogen electrolyzer design. 24.193.218.207 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole thing is clearly nonsense, and there are no proper sources whatsoever for the article, just a load of dubious weblinks NBeale 16:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense for the actual definition, which this is not. Here are the sources, as mentioned above:
- Santilli, Ruggero Maria (August 2006). "A new gaseous and combustible form of water". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 31 (9): 1113–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006.
- CNN (WTVT?)
- Fox News [12]
- Tampa Tribune
- St. Petersburg Times
- WAVE 3
- local news
The water-powered car is obviously bullshit (or, technically, just a hydrogen-powered car being used for dubious marketing purposes), but we don't delete articles just because they're about hoaxes. — Omegatron 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the links are reporting his promotion, they are not article describing this technique in a neutral journalistic fashion. Second, how is discussing this technique so important it is overshadowing what is supposed to be a WP:BIO? Clearly, a bio is not meant to pose as advertisement for a product! Either create an article on the subject and risk an AfD for the reasons I mentioned above, or start making this into a bio.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 26 February 2007 (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.