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 the page history and create a redirect to Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad. There is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable enough for a biographical article, but editors are evenly split as to whether the article should be redirected or deleted. I am deleting the page history and creating a new redirect as the best available compromise. As for the redirect target, given that opinion was split among the editors favouring redirection, and that many editors favouring deletion thought that the car article should also be deleted, Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad seems the most appropriate choice. However, redirecting to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car may be more appropriate if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car is closed as "keep". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Waqar Ahmad (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 People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E at best...he (person, this article) is only known at all and in the news (and only at all as of the past week it seems) because of and in relation to an invention of his. The invention may or may not be notable, but he's got nothing beyond that. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be considered for deletion as it has content that is entirely true and has nothing in it that is even controversial. This article is about a personality who recently invented a water kit to be used in order to run a car on water, which happens to be a first-time in the history. We cannot deny the fact that many people around the world are looking for an article on him on Wikipedia everyday in order to know more about him. I myself check regularly whether the article is already uploaded on Wikipedia. - Musavir Gajani.

• Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad, although I don't think BLP1E applies (an invention is hardly an event), all of the coverage about him, and the article itself, just says that he invented the car, this content is already covered in the article about the car, so in that sense this article is a duplicate of the other one. This biography may meet WP:ANYBIO point 2 at some point in the future, but for now it is too soon. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC) changed target of proposed redirect per Steve. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car, as per Quasihuman.Michael5046 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car (although both should probably be deleted).Prebys (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stuck a WP:PROD onto Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car - hopefully it can be removed without a fight. SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad because, while I agree that redirecting to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car is reasonable - I strongly believe (as does User:Prebys) that it too should be AfD fodder. Neither the inventor, nor the car itself are very notable - there is really no useful information about the car and the inventor is known only for that one (ridiculous) claim. A single paragraph in Water-fuelled car is all that this guy really warrants - and that's already there. SteveBaker (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be fine if we added more verifiable information to the article? The invention has created quite a stir within Pakistan, making national news with scientists debating fiercely weather the invention is real or fraudulent. (Though I believe its real) my personal opinion is not a factor in an article. I do however believe that real or not this has created enough hype and controversy over both Agha Waqar and his engineer's to be worth an article. (Wiki id2(talk) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • The problem with that is recentism. Sure, it made a splash over a few days of news cycle - but will it be remembered for anything in a year from now? The claims the guy is making are absolutely nothing new - there are dozens and dozens of people who think that using a battery to electrolize water into hydrogen and feeding it to an internal combustion engine will make enough power to drive the car (and, not insignificantly, recharge the battery that was used to split the water in the first place). There is a long list of essentially identical claims (not one of which has resulted in a car that you can actually buy). The only notability we have here is because of a quiet news day - the machine itself is neither workable, nor novel. If it worked, it would be a perpetual motion machine - violating the laws of thermodynamics - it would imply that all of physics and chemistry are incorrect. Ask yourself: Is it more likely that the laws of physics are entirely wrong - or that some guy has faked the whole business of the car...just like the previous two dozen people clearly did? SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neither the car nor the inventor are notable, even if there is some press coverage. This sort of thing pops up a lot (see Water-fuelled car), no more notable than virgin mary sightings. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though the person has got some coverage by the media but still he is not notable per WP:BIO. (A little off the debate) After watching demonstration of his invention on television, it looks like a fraud, which we should not be part of by promoting him or his invention. I don't find him or his work suitable for encyclopedia until it is thoroughly checked and certified by professionals, which is yet to happen. --SMS ^Talk 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete the car too, but put a note in the water-powered car list. It could happen that some 'little man' (or 'little woman') invents something that revolutionises science. It rarely does nowadays. It doesn't look like it here, to me. The process as stated doesn't make sense to me, and if it really boils down to electrolysis, then here we go again... Water is too stable a compound to be a source of energy, and you can't add hydrogen to water ("a simple technology in which ‘hydrogen bonding’ with distilled water" - from the dawn.com ref which does sound doubtful in places). Where is this hydrogen coming from to bond with the distilled water - assuming that he has managed to create H3O2 or H4O2 (which would just be a double water molecule anyway)? Simple? I'm willing to be corrected, but only with sound evidence. At the moment, we have a claim, and a couple of government ministers (one of them the Minister for Religion) getting enthusiastic. Until we get more details, this belongs with the list of inventors of THE water-powered car, or with perpetual motion. Incidentally, I've just invented this minute an idea for a water powered car - you have a large tank of water on the roof, and run the water down a pipe to turn a waterwheel which powers a generator whose output drives the car and also refills the tank. Can I have some funding to develop this revolutionary idea? Peridon (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Developing my idea further, braking could also supply power to pump the water by using the system used on hybrid cars. Extra pumping could be done by the driver or passengers, which would save them the cost of going to the gym. Peridon (talk)

This is getting a bit far off-topic for an AfD...but a car that used the gravitational potential energy of water would travel at most a few hundred meters before running out of water. The water in such a system isn't a "fuel" it's the working medium...just as a steam engine isn't a water powered device - it's a coal or wood-fuelled vehicle that happens to use water as the "working medium". As for 'exotic' water molecules being a way for this to work, it doesn't matter. You start off with water and some electrical power stored in the battery. What you end up with after generating hydrogen and then burning it in the engine...is water. If the engine has to recharge the battery to prevent the car from running out of power for hydrolysis - then you'd be able to collect the water from the tailpipe and put it back into the "fuel" tank. Net result would be a perpetual motion machine...and that's flat out impossible, no matter what exotic mechanism you use to transform the water into fuel. We don't need to know how it works in order to know that it cannot POSSIBLY work...unless the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect - which would mean that all of science as we know it is wrong...that's just so spectacularly unlikely that (as an encyclopedia) we can utterly discount it. This car unequivocably cannot work the way the "inventor" describes it as working - ergo he's a liar, a cheat and a fraud. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Peridon and SteveBaker. Adding further to this off topic discussion, the guy is using the same gasoline engine for the hydrogen based fuel. Besides he has just made fool of some non-professionals (including some government officials) while technical people in Pakistan are crying out loud that it is a fraud and asking him to get it thoroughly checked by a team of experts in the fuel cell technology from any university of the country, but he is avoiding it. The guy as I have seen on TV shows seems to have very little technical knowledge, neither did he explain the working of his *invention* properly nor does he know that no one is going to fund him unless it is technically checked. According to him this water fuel kit will cost about 420 USD and can be fixed with any gasoline engine. And guess what, this invention has been made in that country which is suffering from severe power shortage and where people are crying about high prices of petroleum products, where most of the private small vehicles run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) because of high price of gasoline, and the CNG kit also costs about 400 USD. Its really funny that no one has approached him till now to install this kit in their car. --SMS ^Talk 23:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad per arguments provided above. This chap seems to have come up with this idea in good faith (and has received considerable attention too due to this unexplored technology) but as can be seen, there are question marks over the model's scientific process. I think we should leave the job of working out the authenticity of the model to scientists, and time should tell for itself how this goes. For now, a devoted section on Water fuelled car would be good and also WP:NOTABLE/WP:DUE, as has been done in that article for other similar inventors in the past who claimed to have made certain breakthroughs in this technology. Mar4d (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete the car too. This is almost certainly a hoax. See, "The Water Car Fraud," http://tribune.com.pk/story/416542/the-water-car-fraud/ Lahaun (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we delete Piltdown Man as well? Sometimes hoaxes are notable, and an invention being a hoax is not in itself a criteria for deletion, see WP:HOAX#Hoaxes versus articles about hoaxes. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWcomputer (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I have semi-protected this article for 2 days because of recent vandalism from IP and non-confirmed editors. If the result of this AfD is to redirect or keep the article, the closing administrator may change or remove the protection, as they see fit. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car I didn't create the Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car article but I am editing it. I *DO* think it is a hoax. Please also look at the talk page of the article for a discussion I had with SteveBaker regarding the notability issue. I have already prepared a rough draft of the article with sources and I am editing it as of now. People are holding demonstrations in the streets celebrating this man as a messiah so yes, it is a notable event and will be referred to for many years as an elaborate hoax in history of the country. Anaverageguy (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Per discussion above, I have started an AfD on the related Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agha_Waqar's_Water_Fuelled_Car SteveBaker (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE This is clearly a Quack who has been glorified by the "wise" Pakistani Media.^[sarcasm] WP:RECENT also applies. The news articles on him raises further questions on the reliability of the Pakistani media and its news articles.--DBigXray 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car or Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad if the former is deleted. Subject is an example of a classic WP:BLP1E, and is non-notable outside of this one "event." (As a scientist and skeptic, I just couldn't resist putting event in quotes. Sorry.) Zaldax (talk) 13:51, 8 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.