Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine)
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 Delete.. — Scientizzle 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine)
Non-notable invention, no reliable, secondary source. Note image legend The only function model, made by the inventor himself. May be a case of self-promotion. --Pjacobi 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Interesting idea, but no evidence it's ever been implemented outside the inventor's garage. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. My favorite text: This engine from the sixties ... is widely unknown, because it has been suppressed by the SSD (STASI) and KGB. I'd cleaned it up a bit and asked the author/inventor for some assertion of notability but I doubt that any is possible. -Will Beback · † · 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The author's talk page makes it clear that his inventions have not been as successful as he hoped (for whatever reason). There are some Ghits but no real evidence of notability. andy 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the second thought You are all right – but formally only. Under normal circumstances - without the suppression by the communists - the Wolfhart engine would be on the market (ask an expert) and common knowledge. Due to the Cold War we have no normal circumstances – and unusual circumstances demand unusual actions. Ergo – this article should stay in the same way as other articles about rotary engines where also only one model exist – and on the end – if the article stays a while – it becomes “notability”.
Even the German Wikipedia tolerate this article Kugelkolbenmotor and has a lot of hits. There is great interest on this invention – at least in Germany. It would be seen as a shame if the USA are unable to tolerate such article and a loss of important technical knowledge. At last the US-Wikipedia would show courage not to follow the orders of the KGB. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - we shouldn't be keeping a non-notable article just in case it later becomes notable. It's not notable right now because there are very few independent third party references to it. Maybe that will change, maybe not. andy 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Conflict of interest issues are a problem as well as notability. Wikipedia is not a way to promote inventions. Just as a quick note my connections with the KGB are not particularly strong. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
*Question There are other articles all your arguments are exactly right also for them. Why exist for instance the following articles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine
I would like to know what the difference exist to my article? --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The existence of bad article on Wikipedia (not to say these articles are bad) is not a reason to keep an article that does not meet standards. See WP:WAX. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
...and why is there a Category: Proposed engine designs? --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 03:09, 7 May 2007 (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.
