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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolysis system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams. The subject matter the article deals with already presented on electrolysis of water and oxyhydrogen. OMCV (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The concerns raised above are true ones. Any relevant, properly sourced info should be merged with electrolysis of water. Airplaneman ^talk 02:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork of Electrolysis of water. No usable content or history; the FTC link is at Fuel Freedom International, and could probably be added to Water-fuelled car. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with the nominator. Have read the article and found its tone unencyclopedic and the content not worthy of merging into anything. The title is not neologism, but refers to a specific design, which is much too specific for WP though, thus redirect is hardly suitable too. Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A google search for "Electrolysis system" in quotes yields >150,000 pages, and the top hits all seem to be legitimate articles or commercial websites about various specific applied systems. The term is being used, it certainly fits notability among other criteria. If scams or fringe theories call themselves "electrolysis systems" or refer to these, that doesn't invalidate the use of the term for the legitimate systems that do exist and are being called "electrolysis systems". Any concern about tone, style, or scams/fringe theories can be dealt with by editing this article.Fredwerner (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if we already cover this subject under a slightly different title then that is just an argument for a redirect. Besides, you can't just count Google hits, you have to look at whether they are relevant. There are hits for this but many are not relevant at all. I see a lot of "electrolysis system"s for removing hair, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 October 2009

I agree completely with Daniel.--OMCV (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial Merge. I am going to be generous say "merge" because it looks less like a cynical POV fork as one of those things that happens when an inexperienced editor writes a good faith article on an existing subject without realising that it is already covered. There might be a few things here that are worth merging to other articles, if there is RS to support them. I can't see any support for scams here although the tone is poor. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the page "But these systems have been tied with scams as well. The reason for the failure of the scams are due to the fact that usually they don't produce enough oxyhydrogen. Even though many universities and private parties have done tests and have argued for years on the results, no official government test data has been released." Basically it says some of these systems are scams are but not all of them so you the consumer should be discerning. Then it goes directly to suggesting that the authorities have never debunked the said scams. Regardless its bad writing even by my standards and weird on the POV but you are probably right about the good faith. Still the content should be removed or moved and the page deleted or redirected.--OMCV (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator's assessment of the article. I do not see any information that is worth merging into the existing articles that better cover this topic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:00, 29 October 2009 (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.