Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car

:{{la|Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agha_Waqar%27s_water-fuelled_car Stats])

:({{Find sources|Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car}})

Fraud case Umar1996 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• {{comment}} Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car when article had a slightly different name. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as patent nonsense (isn't that a CSD G1?) about a perpetual motion machine that both runs on water by electrolysis, and constantly supplies water wherever needed. Err, think about it for a millisecond. The laws of thermodynamics don't allow it. Doesn't much matter what references are provided in such a situation, it's still nonsense. Delete, really quickly please. And salt against any recurrence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

---(striking as per consensus below) Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It doesn't matter that Waqar's ideas are nonsense, the article (not his idea) has reliable sources. Wikipedia can still cover fringe theories, hoaxes, perpetual motion machines, and other nonsense as long as they have had a significant impact and received skeptical press coverage. The serious attention given by the Pakistani government shows this had real impact, despite being nonsense. Nobody has offered a policy-based reason for deletion. WP:FRINGE is the relevant notability guideline, and it is met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, we carry articles about hoaxes *as hoaxes*, when, as here, they have significant coverage in reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep per previous AfD and Colapeninsula. The existence of RS coverage on any subject is enough for notability, even if it's about a hoax. Quoting User:Hobit from the previous AfD, "Notable hoaxes are notable." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:: OK, if we're to keep it (sound of teeth being gritted) it needs some serious editing to say "hoax, dross, nonscience" pretty clearly throughout. At the moment there are chunks which seem to be "in world" to use a game metaphor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

::: Point taken. Keep and Cleanup. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Widely reported scam. Article could use some work, but makes status as hoax clear.TheLongTone (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Zia Khan 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable hoax and improve. May be rename it to Agha Waqar's Water-Kit instead of Agha Waqar's water fueled car to keep it coherent. He is still talked about in Pakistani media from time to time and invited by naive media hosts to explain himself. For his supporters, the jury is still out on his perpetual motion machine; and they are awaiting for him to come up with a commercial version of the kit, which he promised to deliver a few months ago. He claims he can deliver his product in 3 months time. I am not holding my breath. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment -- In its present form the article does not make it clear that the whole idea is completely impossible. The fact that the "inventor" had three meetings with ministers indicates that they took this perpetual motion machine seriously. I suppose that measn that it needs an article, but in its present form it is far too credulously accepting of something contrary to the laws of physics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

: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.