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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Although the community has decided several times this and related articles should be deleted they keep being recreated. It looks as if this article still fails the policies cited in the previous AfD's (see below).

 Listed here to ask for community consensus on the need for this article after it has been deleted several times, and since this clearly is a fringe topic which nobody normally would see.

My view is it fails policy on several levels.

1. WP:NN and WP:SCI: Contrary to popular believe having your advertisement on CNN does not establish notability, especially in the absense of any scientific peer review of the alleged technique. Further, using Google we find the following: "Aquygen" 23,400 hits (looks as if they all are promotional in nature, or at least fail WP:RS)[1] "HHO gas" 18,700 hits (looks as if they all are promotional in nature, or at least fail WP:RS)[2] "Denny Klein" 726 hits[3] Clearly there is insufficient news reports (that is non-promotional) to claim notability.
2. Violates WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Aside from Randi all the provided sources are either commercial sites or promotional in nature.
3. WP:COI more specifically this part. Regarding the use of commercial websites as source as well as the fact that editors are not neutral.[4][5]
4. This and related articles did not survive AfD in the past because of the same reasons. Some of them are recently recreated as redirect to this page.[6] Sounds like this is done to circumvent the decision in previous AfD's without using WP:DRV. Please, include the following discussions and recreated articles (redirects) in this AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas -[7] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO -[8]-[9] - Hho-[10] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen - Aquygen-[11] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination) - Brown's gas - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis

In short, if we take out what is not supported by independent non-promotional sources the entire article would contain two sentences (hyperbole). Please comment on the need to keep such an article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Way too much unsupported info and way too many weasel words ("allegedly") Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, no need for this to be recreated yet again --Action Jackson IV 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though possibly useful example on a page of hoaxes or pseudo-science. Shenme 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete EBSCO search got zero hits. If science journals aren't taking notice, I don't see why Wikipedia should.--Djrobgordon 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can this not be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material? Also, isn't HHO gas simply steam? Perhaps this should be a redirect to steam. If not, delete. --Charlene 09:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately it was decided that Speedy deletion was inappropriate.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Might as well be called "HoHoHo" gas coming from Santa Claus for all the scientific evidence presented for it in the article. Edison 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is disturbing. Noah Seidman 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Does anybody here remember polywater? — RJH (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did a few more searches, after deciding that if the claims are so outlandish they wouldn't need to be tested, EBSCO may have been the wrong approach. Still, though, I found nothing but blogs. One Fox News story just isn't enough for me.--Djrobgordon 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Will somebody please read through our Wikipedia:Deletion policy? If you don't like the content of the article, fix the article. Deletion is for things that we shouldn't have articles about; not for articles that are poorly written. We don't put articles up for deletion just because they're about Fringe science, Hoaxes, or Pseudoscience.

  • 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.

  • Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.

  • If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article.

    — Omegatron 02:07, 9 March 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.