| Revision as of 15:27, 7 August 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (end. deletion)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:34, 7 August 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (deletion endorsed)Next edit → |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following article on Aquygen or HHO Gas does not meet any of the General criteria as outlined in the Official Misplaced Pages Criteria for speedy deletion. The prior article was deleted against official Misplaced Pages policy, as the policy clearly states the following: in Articles for Deletion (AFD) "''A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases."'' This 5 day public debate was not conducted and the article was deleted prior to recieving a full and proper debate. The new article written on the topic of "Aquygen" does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and I will discuss in detail the reasons why it does not meet the above said criteria. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet section 1, as it state that "''This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria in section 2. as it is not a test page. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria in section 3. As it is clearly not vandalism as defined on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria as defined in section 4. As it clearly states the following: |
|
|
"''Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject.''" The material presented is not substantially identical to the orignal article. It contains similar information but has been completely rewritten. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria in section 5. The user is not banned. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria in section 6. It is not housekeeping. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria in section 7. The Author being myself, I am not requesting the deletion of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not meet the criteria in Section 8. It is not a talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Article does not and should not meet the criteria in section 9. The Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedily delete a page temporarily in cases of exceptional controversy. This is not an "exceptional controversy". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With this in mind I therefore believe that this article which has been submitted for speedy deletion has been done so with no basis, and therefore should remain as an article. The validity of the article has been addressed with opposing views presented and the information on the page was sourced from credible sources including goverment agencies (Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet) ,(US Patent Office) and others, and has been referenced from an accredited Scientific Journal (International Journal of Hydrogen Energy) and has been verified throught various media sources (CNN),(NBC),(FOX News). As per the arguement that this is "pseudoscience", that may be a valid arguement because the research is ongoing. However the information provided is accurate as is currently understood in science per the cited information. This alone does not constitute a reason to delete an article as outlined in the Articles for deletion on Misplaced Pages. So this article meets neither the criteria for speedy deletion nor the criteria for articles of deletion, nor the criteria for proposed deletion. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 04:49 2 August, 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] for everyone's convenience. No vote from me yet (though I'd lean on endorsing closure). --'']'' (]/]) 11:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*] is the AfD he is actually contesting; due to reposting of the same material, the result of this second nomination was '''speedy delete'''. ] 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:**OK, my bad. =( I've got to sleep overnight to think what to do with this. --'']'' (]/]) 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': I voted in the AfD, so I'll abstain here. However, the author argued vociferously with every 'delete' motion. I will make no comment on whether it is proper policy or not, but the debate was closed with an early dispensation, probably, to shut off a flood of nonce account voting and a tireless waging of a war of attrition by the author. The 'voting' was going toward a strong delete, once the suspicious voices were eliminated, and letting the debate run additional time would show little in the way of legitimate and much in the way of illegitimate contention. I ''support'' the early close. ] 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''' it's a valid AfD. ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''': Please explain your SPECIFIC reasons for voting for Deletion. Also please explain what part of the article did not meet wikipedia specifications. I want to know exactly why this article was deleted, because as it stands I feel it was discrimination based on personal feelings on the issue of hydrogen technology, which is not rational for using the deletion process. As outlined in the (AfD) under Abuse of Deletion Process. Thank you! ] 04:16 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***'''Comment''' please note I'm endorsing the AfD not the article as far as I see there is no abuse looks like a valid AfD to me. ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''' it's a valid AfD. And since this isn't a second AFD, but rather a review of the process, that's your specific reason. --] | ] 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD (and that's a valid reason in deletion review, so don't bother asking). --] ] 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid per process and per policy as far as I can see. ] 09:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*<s>'''Overturn and relist'''. I'm not sure what the people above are seeing here, the AfD was closed early and, from what I'm able to see, it didn't qualify for a speedy. Not a valid AfD, not valid per process, and not valid per deletion policy. I'll be glad to change my mind if some evidence that this was actually valid, but I'm not seeing it here. --] <small>]</small> 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)</s> Got the evidence I was looking for. Thanks. --] <small>]</small> 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Clarification: Do you mean for a new listing, or to let the old listing run for the remainder of its days (3, I think)? ] 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I'm okay with either, honestly. As long as it gets a full hearing as it's supposed to. --] <small>]</small> 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': I would be content if someone else wanted to attempt to write a New neutral article on the topic of Aquygen or HHO Gas. Aquygen was deleted and protected from recreation, which I am protesting. HHO Gas is being discussed currently as per the Articles for Deletion (AfD), and may or may not be deleted. Apparently the issue is that people feel that Aquygen is a Brown's Gas, and from my understanding Brown's Gas is considered by some sources to be a hoax. Because of some similarities to Brown's Gas, HHO Gas (Aquygen) is also being considered by some to be a hoax. It has not been verified from any known sources to prove that HHO Gas is a hoax, and I have seen no overwhelming scientific evidence which supports the notion that Aquygen Gas is a hoax. The original sources of information for the Aquygen article can be viewed from the following sources listed below. I cannot find any scientists who have written articles dismissing HHO Gas or Aquygen as a hoax. If anyone can provide this information I would be open to reading it. As per the deletion of the article, I know that the debate was closed early, recieving less than 24 hours of debate and discussion which does not allow for the full 5 days or 120 hours of debate and discussion outlined in the guidelines of the official wikipedia Policy of Articles for Deletion. I would like to see the topic discussed for the full 5 day period, which is my protest of this article being deleted and protected from recreation. Below are the orignal sources for the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 01:57 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*The second AfD was unnecessary, as the material was reposted material which had previously been deleted following the first AfD. The first AfD was valid, therefore the second AfD is not in question here. Since the first AfD was valid and there has been no ''new'' argumentation on the notability of this supposed substance, '''Speedy keep deleted''' as there is no suggestion that the original AfD was invalid. ]|] 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I see one AfD, not two, and that one appears to be closed improperly. Where's the second? --] <small>]</small> 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** ], ran from 25 May to 2 June, result was Delete. ], from 1 August to 2 August, result was Speedy G4 as repost. (Discussion was overwhelmingly for Delete anyway before G4 was invoked). ] 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''': ]. ], but not '''that''' important. --]<sup>(])</sup> 11:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Important or not, WP:SNOW (and WP:PI, for that matter) have no place here. --] <small>]</small> 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Point of Reference''': This is the last comment I am going to make regarding this Subject! I am beyond arguing about the Articles for Deletion. I accept that the article was deleted through the AfD process apparently May 25th to June 2nd. Therefore I am not going to argue about the AfD policy regarding this article. It Was Deleted, I am over it. At some point when this technology is more readily available and becomes common knowledge, The article will be rewritten anyway. Therefore I am not going to waste my time with people who believe that everything about this gas is a HOAX. I am however going to state for the record that this is in fact a real product. You can argue that this gas may NOT be a Revolutionary New form of Energy, but NOT That this is a Real Product. You can call up Donald Wann with The Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky and ask them if they are using HHO Gas, They will tell you Yes. I called and confirmed this. Fact is that it is being used in commercial applications. The overwhelming reason that this article was submitted for deletion was on the basis that it is a HOAX. I submit that if that is the case, I have been fooled by one of the most Elaborate and Expensive Hoaxes in history!! For anyone who is interested in more information, please view the following video from Google Video. It is 15 minutes long, and there are interviews with credible people about their use of HHO Gas. You can also download the powerpoint presentation provided by the Fulton County Area Technology Center in Kentucky. and Here |
|
|
] 00:00 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', the AfD was valid, and the speedy deletion was also valid. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 05:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
====]==== |
Can an administrator tell me whether the contents of the deleted article was about the female artist active since the 1980s? If so, then she clearly deserves an article by several of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC and the deletion should be undone. For one thing, at the time of deletion the article was linked to by list of 1980s one-hit wonders in the United States, so the deletion in this case may have been done a little bit too speedily. ---- Dissident (Talk) 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)