The result was delete. AfD is not a merry-go-round. This is essentially some "special" type of oxyhydrogen (whatever that means); go put the information there until reliable sources can be found. May I also warn that repeated recreation of this article without heeding policy (let alone badgering commenters whose opinions you don't agree with) can and will be construed as disruption, and blocks may and will be meted out to stop said disruption. —Kurykh 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this article or Brown's gas survived multiple AfD's before, but people keep recreating it. Trying to keep an open mind I waited and gave the articles a chance to grow, this unfortunately did not happen. Since the recurring problems have not been solved I want some community input as to whether the article should be deleted again!! or can be allowed to stay. Included in this AfD is Brown's gas for the same reasons.
Among the violations of policy:
In short, if we take out what is not supported by independent non-promotional sources the articles would contain two sentences (hyperbole). Please comment on the need to keep such articles. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
— Omegatron 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]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.
And I wish Nescio would make an honest attempt to understand this. Gnothi seauton. Man with two legs 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fnagaton 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huntja2 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]