Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of water fuel inventions

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, it's snowing. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of water fuel inventions[edit]

This page was originally created as a potential compromise that I suggested over the listing of exhibits at Water Fuel Museum a few months ago. Unfortunately, it seems as if this article has remained a mess, and it seems as though most of the individual devices here would not be themselves notable. Best to move what few are notable into a list of perpetual motion devices, or some such. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. This page deserves to exist, because part of our role is to catalogue crazy science for the purpose of helping to debunk it. I see no reason why we have to destroy the village in order to save it.

Also "water fuel" isn't the same thing as "perpetual motion" and it would be wrong of us to give credence to any such confusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking it is... if you can electrolyze water for less energy than it takes to combust hydrogen and oxygen, then you could run a hose from the exhaust pipe to the gas tank and get a perpetual motion machine. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a big "if". No one has yet invented a viable perpetual motion machine and if this was possible some scientists or an enterprising kid learning about electrolysis would've figured it out by now. No, they're two different things. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this water fuel stuff is either unverifiable or fraudulent, but that is neither here nor there... TallNapoleon (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a water fuel I could also toast bread, but that doesn't mean I categorise it under Category:Kitchen appliances too. "Water fuel" is probably a footnote in perpetual motion, but it's not a defining characteristic of the invention.

Nor are they unverifiable or unreferenceable. The problem is that they don't work, not that we can't trace details of their invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix, or possibly merge with water fueled car. I rather like having at least a mention of the less notable inventions that don't merit an article on their own. The museum on the other hand you can AfD and I would support that. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, I agree with the two editors above Power.corrupts (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Museum survived an AFD, but I might be willing to try another one. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Useful navigational aid. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Lists can collect items that aren't notable by themselves, and the concept of water as fuel is common enough that it needs another article besides Water-fuelled car. Non-verifiable items will of course have to go, and I really don't think water as a reactant belongs in the article.Sjö (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I only see a typical list article with a clear inclusion criteria. It's a bit of a mess now, that's all. Useful for people who land on articles like Hongcheng Magic Liquid and want to see other similar inventions in an ordered list with some context. It's also provides some good value that can't delivered using a category. Not a content fork because the museum article has a way smaller scope, looks like a good split. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 10 January 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.