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 speedy keep. Withrawn by me (nominator) per subsequent improvements to the article. Request that the author take heed to the advice on his talk-page and rehash his knowledge of WP:V and WP:RS (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change water to oil[edit]

Grave verifiability and original research concerns. This article also shows the subject in a negative light, which potentially violates WP:BLP - if that is the case, then the article may be placed for speedy deletion as a BLP violation. Notability here is also a big issue, with a Google search yielding no results whatsoever. I added 2 sources (in Chinese) to the article, however the article still fails WP:BLP1E. On a side note, editors may wish to review this discussion as well. Flewis^(talk) 11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While potentially interesting, it remains unsourced, thus failing WP:V. A google search for ["Wang Hongcheng" water oil] returns only 12 hits, and so also fails WP:N. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Excellent find with the Science article! I have access, and although not a huge article, it does spend 2 or 3 paragraphs discussing the invention and indeed supports the claims made in the article. I will have another look when I have more time and see if there's anything else in there that can be added to the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article survives, I would also suggest moving to Hongcheng Magic Liquid - seems like more of a logical name. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However a search on baidu.com for "水变油"(The Chinese name of "Change water to oil") returns 59,300. Few foreigners know this. So it is not reported very wide by Western media. Alonso McLaren (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hum, I see that he was Mentioned on a Science (magazine) article[1] (it's pay-per-view, so I can't see it, but google lists it), on an article by Carl Sagan [2] (and repeated the same claims on the book The Demon-Haunted World [3] (spanish version, page 28), and, in the wider context of pseudoscience on China, he appears on the CSICOP's newsletter[4], in facts.org[5] and in James Randi weekly comment[6] (he quotes Sagan's book). Full article from China Daily [7] (a chinese newspaper written only in english, the copy is hosted in what looks like a chinese skeptical group?). I'm suspecting that the only reason is has few sources online is because it happened before Internet was popular, there must have been good coverage on dead-tree sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all issues are manageable. It really needs more RS evidence. Comment: This article may set a record for the number of (mostly unnecessary) templates. NVO (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent case at the time - Skysmith (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (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.