Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car

Add links
From 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 keep. Without prejudice towards a merge discussion or renomination after 3+ months. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article purports to be about a water-fuelled car. Unsurprisingly, there is already a perfectly good entry about the car and it's inventor in our Water-fuelled car article. Just like the dozens and dozens of previous efforts to make such a thing, this one cannot possibly work (it violates the laws of thermodynamics). The article contains a couple of sentences about the car itself, then spends the remainder of the article discussing the current media discussions in Pakistan, where the car was "invented". Per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I suggest that this article stands no chance of passing WP:10YT - and since the substantive content about the car itself is completely (and more appropriately) covered in Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad, this article is redundant and should be removed. Note that a companion article on the inventor Agha Waqar Ahmad is also up for AfD and will almost certainly be deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge per WP:10YT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Agree with Nom this is just a hoax by a Pakistani Quack. Amusingly the Pakistani Scientific community is still unable to expose the misdeeds of this quack. On a side note I am anxiously waiting for a water-Powered Al-Khalid tank.[1] Pity the sorry state of affairs --DBigXray 12:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's certainly OK to have articles about hoaxes - but this is a fairly non-notable hoax. Notice from Water-fuelled cars that as recently as last december, another Pakistani inventor claimed to have invented the exact same thing and made the exact same kind of media splash - and yet was forgotten so quickly that this new announcement made another media splash in the exact same country! Far from passing the 10 year test, the last example of this phenomena hasn't even passed the six month test! Muhammad Qamar Khan (here)(and here) is yet another Pakistani inventor with the exact same set of bogus claims. The list of "inventors" of such things (generally using the same principles of eletrolysis of water) runs into dozens and stretches back as far as the invention of the automobile itself! There really is nothing special about this one other than that it has hit the news recently - and that's going to fail WP:10YT. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has garnered significant attention in many reliable sources. It would also make sense to redirect Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad and expand that entry, but a redirect is not a delete (and doesn't need an AfD). --OpenFuture (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The news articles further proves how "wise" Pakistani media is and how reliable their news articles are.[sarcasm]--DBigXray 13:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not wisdom. :-) And the references include New York Times. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT article is actually mocking the sorry state of affairs in Pakistan. Its not approving "this joke", there is a large difference --DBigXray 13:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from that NYT article: "News media commentators said the coverage of Mr. Ahmad’s claims was the Pakistani version of Britain’s “silly season,” when journalists and politicians embrace the unlikely during the annual lull in politics."...hence according to reliable sources, WP:10YT==fail. SteveBaker (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no difference. It makes no difference if NYT approves or ridicules the topic, notability is notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for events Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria: " Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This event doesn't have a lasting effect, it has no sign of large scope, persistence, or diversity. Much of the sourcing seems to fall under WP:SENSATION as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge - While this has certainly gathered attention from numerous reliable sources (NYT, Times of India, the local news radio station in my area), there have been many such claims before, and there will be many such claims in the future -- most of, if not all, of these claims will likely be just as fraudulent and ignorant of science as this one. (As hard as I'm trying to be objective and neutral here, as a scientist I just can't help myself...) However, the "event" has received an admittedly unusual amount of coverage in the mainstream Pakistani media, which might overcome any hurdles to WP:GNG. There is already a precedent for a separate article (See: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell; if it can be shown that this topic is as notable as the aforementioned one or if coverage continues, I would be in favor of a weak keep. Another good course of action is to merge the most important bits of this article into the main article for Water-fuelled car, since, as other editors have already stated, this may be yet another failure of the Ten Year Test. Zaldax (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The statement that there was a "splash" regarding the inventor from last December is factually incorrect. He was interviewed by a couple of people and no one noticed. Most likely the guy never approached the government to get OK from them. The new guy has caused quite a stir. People are chanting his name on the streets. The government is fully supporting him. The media is singing his praises. There is plenty of debate going on in the media regarding his claims. This is a notable event on it's own. Anybody considering deletion should go to the article and read my comments in Talk page which have been constantly ignored. I have already said that this will be referred to in the media in next 10 years as a hoax so it's appropriate to keep it. I don't care about the article on Agha Waqar Ahmad and it's completely irrelevant to bring it up here. This article is detailing a notable event and a hoax from a certain country. This article would be in the same category as a political scandal such as memogate. Should we delete that too? What about the piltdown man hoax? I just want to make it clear that you are NOT promoting the inventor by keeping the article. I think it's a hoax but it's important to be covered as there must be millions Googling him right now and will be Googling him for next few decades. Besides all this, the article was substantially re-written with WP:NPOV, and there are both type of citations given (skeptic and believer).Anaverageguy (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not this invention works is not a valid criteria for determining whether it is notable. The only issue here is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. No offense to Steve who does great work on Wikipedia, this nomination sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary reliable sources can be added. We just have to look a little harder. But obviously the majority of sources will be from Pakistani News sites as that is where it's happening. Anaverageguy (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Then discuss on talk pages about a possible merge to Water-fuelled car. Outright deletion of the entire page doesn't benefit the encyclopedia whatsoever. Rather than requesting for a Wikipedia administrator to delete the article entirely, perhaps consider a merge. Also, the nomination reads very subjectively, without any analysis of the actual coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a notable hoax if politicians and major news sources were fooled. Dream Focus 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The content is going to be kept in some form, of course, either here or at the compilation article. Typically in such cases its easy to keep the original article and revisit it a few months later after the hype has died down.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Think about WP:N in context. The times article isn't profiling an invention it's using this man as an example of mockery. He and his invention are incidental to the actual context of the story. It may technically meet the general notability standards but applying the test of having a separate article for every derivative of a concept (particularly one based on pseudoscience is foolish. If everyone who has tried to make an engine run on water or replicate a cold fusion reactor or build a perpetual motion machine had separate articles outside of water-fuelled car, Cold Fusion and Perpetual motion then we'd have a very un-encyclopedic mess of information. Nefariousski (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stanley Meyers has an article, mainly because he is constantly brought up by conspiracy theorists. This guy has also managed to fool a pretty big part of the population. It is NOT an article on the guy himself, or the invention, but the ACTUAL EVENTS leading to massive hype. I think in 10 years from now, the article might provide an example of how masses can be fooled in simple ways. I agree with Northamerica1000 on grounds of WP:Preserve. Compare this article to the article on Peter Popoff. Despite having little notoriety, there is an article on him, and most likely anyone who is smart enough to Google him will see him as a Charlatan. The article is more for educational purposes. The details needed cannot be added on a one paragraph entry in the main water-fueled car article. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - I meant Peter Popof has very little notability now (and some notoriety I guess). Anaverageguy (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only as a notable fraud/hoax, not as a scientific topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has been passionately discussed by various reliable sources such as newspapers, and has also been written about by notable scientists such as Pervez Hoodbhoy: The water car fraud. As per TopGun, this should be kept not through the scientific lens but as a controversial/widely-discussed topic. Mar4d (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have written most of the article as it stands (except couple of edits yesterday from others). I have tried my best to keep the tone very neutral and skeptical. Anyone willing to improve it and make it even clearer from a skeptical point of view should not hesitate.Anaverageguy (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the references in the article aren't about the specific Agha Waqar water fuelled car but in generality: it's also doubtful whether this is anything more than news coverage on a slow news day. Wikipedia is not a WP:NEWSPAPER. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to list of hoaxes page you will find plenty of non-notable hoaxes. I have only heard of one or two of them. By comparison, this hoax is being discussed by far more reliable sources and has relevance within Pakistan. I am convinced that some people will Google him thinking he is a genius, but might change their mind after reading this article. I have repeated many times that the article is about the events, not the inventor or the invention. Stanley Meyers article has the same amount of coverage of the inventor because he closely linked to the conspiracy theorists' claims. As for Wikipedia not being a WP:NEWSPAPER, I think WP:Preserve supersedes it. Then there is also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER which makes keeping this article completely reasonable. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editing policy does not supersede what an encyclopedia has articles on. Newspaper related content like this belongs on wikinews, transwikify it if you wish. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not news. This is an ongoing event/ hoax. I 'd like to reiterate what I said above:
"If you go to list of hoaxes page you will find plenty of non-notable hoaxes...Then there is also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER which makes keeping this article completely reasonable." Anaverageguy (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't notable then take them to AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They may not appear notable to you and me because we have never heard of them. But someone thought they were notable enough to make an article about them and most of them will stay as per WP:NOTPAPER. By comparison, this story has been covered by [| NYTimes] and [| Time magazine's website] among many other Pakistan-based news sources. Sure, they are not praising the inventor, but neither is the wiki article. Anaverageguy (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read NOTPAPER: " However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question satisfies notability and five pillar requirements. Your objection to it sounds a lot like WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC argument. Anaverageguy (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move either to Water-fuelled car (WFC from now on) or Notable hoaxes#Water-fuelled car. WFC in itself is not an encyclopedic topic if seen as the car itself, simply because it does not exist. WFC as a hoax may be notable because it has been claimed so often. Move to another often-tried-and-failed project, Alcohol-fuelled driver#Water-fuelled car, maybe?
  • And redirect Agha Waqar Ahmad to the WFC article/section then. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 12:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources in the article easily meet WP:N. Notable hoaxes are notable. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agha_Waqar%27s_Water_Fuelled_Car&oldid=1166587651"