Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common Ducted Electrolysis
By now my reservoir of AGF for this nest of articles is nearly exhausted. This article is only a pretext and link container to advertize companies selling a very dubious product and seeking investors.
- Note that this statement by Pjacobi is an unsubstantiated stereotype and removal of this article will help perpetuate false claims. Keeping this article will help squach stereotypes and will in-turn clarify the true naure of the subject at hand. The only reason these stereotypes exist is because of entrenched carbon infrastructure; I mention this because in other countries, especially Korea and China common ducted electrolysis technologies are quickly becoming the foundation of their fuel infrastructure. Why distribute liquid fuels, when electrical networks and on-site fuel production its more intuitive? Noah Seidman 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compare HHO/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO and Brown's Gas/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination).
Do you think, fuel can be saved by using a trucks light machine to produce Brown's Gas by Common Ducted Electrolysis and feed it into to engine to burn there?
OK, even if it were complete WP:BOLLOCKS it would deserve an article (but not four) if a notable scam, but I don't see this.
Pjacobi 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced bollocks. Dr Zak 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pure original research as it stands.DMacks 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article contains pure common sense that has been hitherto un-addressed. Without clearly stating the distinction between common ducted electrolysis and independently ducted electrolysis the perpetuation of stereotypes will ensue. This article is important to keep to squash unsubstantial stereotypes. How can this be origional research, this article is just pure common sense rationality. Noah Seidman 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How can this be origional research, this article is just pure common sense rationality. It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have a process to ban a user for complete failure to understand (or deliberate disregard of) WP:NOR. John Broughton | Talk 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ban it does have such a process. It falls under something like "trying the patience of the community". Rklawton 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How can this be origional research, this article is just pure common sense rationality. It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have a process to ban a user for complete failure to understand (or deliberate disregard of) WP:NOR. John Broughton | Talk 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not reaching an encyclopedic level of notability. Keeping an article because it mitigates stereotypes or because it is common sense aren't valid reasons to keep in my opinion. Articles can be deleted no matter how true/accurate/rational they are. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & above --Vsmith 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Debunkify per nom, this article isn't encyclopedic. Indeed, it is quite misleading. Rklawton 23:34, 23 November 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.