Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The M4+2 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. BanyanTree 10:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The M4+2 engine
Non-notable, patented invention that has not yet entered production, no independent reviews, most likely it's a way to "advertise" the invention. Roo72 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The creator has made exactly one contribution, and this article is it. I can't find anything on google to show that it's received much of any attention. This definitely reeks of spam. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, per nom and JeremyMcCracken. Visor (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Weakkeep Added an independent third party reference, the inventor has 16 patents, so what, this one from 6 years ago didn't enter the production phase yet? - it doesn't automatically discredit it as an entry into English Wikipedia. I think many engineers in the field of the thermal exhaust systems will be interested in it. No reason to delete it. However, this article needs a lot of work. The issue of better category is the first one. Second, the fact that the author of this article is a novice to Wikipedia, as it shows, is apparent - it doesn't disqualify him from here as the nominator has suggested. No links etc. So far, this poorly written justification to support such an AfD is more obvious to me as a misjudgment than the article itself. A tag regarding want to include required refs would be more appropriate I guess. greg park avenue (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - added another reference, both from the official sites, local Polish gov. and edu., improved the language and style I hope; my impression is this article sounds too enthusiastic about the possible energy input/output rates claimed in it, still worth to save, that's why I changed my vote from weak keep to keep. I haven't found any traces of auto-promotion by this article's creator - no entries by him on this AfD - rather the ignorance and/or frivolousnes on its subject shown by the nominator, who as admin in Polish Wiki singlehandedly speedily deleted its mirror entry in there ignoring five or six votes (5-6) for keeping, against 0 (zero) for deletion. Less than five votes over here, most of them before adding refs; please relist if necessary - a tag for an expert opinion I wouldn't mind at all. greg park avenue (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, refs provided are not RS ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, references do not meet WP:V or WP:R. Maybe after some scholarly sources come out about it someone can post an updated article in the future. Renee (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't see how WP:R may apply here - there was no talk of redirecting this article until this time, rather of expert opinion. And WP:V is accessible easily for someone having AOL/Netscape browser as I have. Sorry, if you don't, but what we do need here is an expert opinion(!!!), not a blabla about internet access difficulties and its understanding. greg park avenue (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Renee meant WP:RS. The sources in the article aren't verifiable- of the two I can read, both are authored by the inventor. That's not enough to say it's even a real invention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- One source in Polish is written by an independent city journalist about the inventor; the other source which abstract is in English has been published by a respectable scientific journal, the article co-authored by the inventor, still published by the educational institution. Both sites are not accesible to the public, not ones anyone can edit like those in Wikipedia. If your article had been published by say Physical Review, would you consider its abstract listed on its official site as non-admissible as evidence into Wikipedia according to the WP:RV guidelines? And here is the clinch - the inventor doesn't take part neither in this discussion, nor tries to interfere in the editing of this article. Someone else like me does. And if this is not enoogh to say it's even a real invention as you have stated above, you might be right this time, that's why I have asked an expert's opinion in this field. Are you one? greg park avenue (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- An expert isn't going to be any help with reliable sources. Also at issue with the article is notability. There doesn't appear to be any coverage (journals, books, etc) on the internet, which is exactly why there aren't any more sources out there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at this. Six stroke engine, very close in the idea to M4+2. 40% reduction in fuel consumption meaning little less only than claimed in this article. And only three references. No books, no big coverage in journals or newspapers (actually in only one). And all these Six stroke engines are also patents only. Still they have been allowed into Wikipedia. Why this one should be excluded? You don't like it? greg park avenue (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:IDONTLIKEIT greg park avenue (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at this. Six stroke engine, very close in the idea to M4+2. 40% reduction in fuel consumption meaning little less only than claimed in this article. And only three references. No books, no big coverage in journals or newspapers (actually in only one). And all these Six stroke engines are also patents only. Still they have been allowed into Wikipedia. Why this one should be excluded? You don't like it? greg park avenue (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- An expert isn't going to be any help with reliable sources. Also at issue with the article is notability. There doesn't appear to be any coverage (journals, books, etc) on the internet, which is exactly why there aren't any more sources out there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- One source in Polish is written by an independent city journalist about the inventor; the other source which abstract is in English has been published by a respectable scientific journal, the article co-authored by the inventor, still published by the educational institution. Both sites are not accesible to the public, not ones anyone can edit like those in Wikipedia. If your article had been published by say Physical Review, would you consider its abstract listed on its official site as non-admissible as evidence into Wikipedia according to the WP:RV guidelines? And here is the clinch - the inventor doesn't take part neither in this discussion, nor tries to interfere in the editing of this article. Someone else like me does. And if this is not enoogh to say it's even a real invention as you have stated above, you might be right this time, that's why I have asked an expert's opinion in this field. Are you one? greg park avenue (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Renee meant WP:RS. The sources in the article aren't verifiable- of the two I can read, both are authored by the inventor. That's not enough to say it's even a real invention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how WP:R may apply here - there was no talk of redirecting this article until this time, rather of expert opinion. And WP:V is accessible easily for someone having AOL/Netscape browser as I have. Sorry, if you don't, but what we do need here is an expert opinion(!!!), not a blabla about internet access difficulties and its understanding. greg park avenue (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) That doesn't apply; I'm not in favor of deleting because I don't like the idea. It's not notable and has a lack of reliable sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see more links have been added; it might pass notability now; I'm not sure as I don't know the language. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a prime example- searching google for M4+2 engine leads to confusing results as google doesn't understand the plus. I googled for M 4 2 engine piotr, using the inventor's first name to try and throw off false hits. I got the wikipedia article and the document linked from the article and labeled as by the author, and nothing else. I googled Piotr Mezyk and got the same two links plus a word document. Google news, google scholar, google books, no hits. There's just no source to demonstrate the notability of this design. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I got same problem with searching for M2+4 - definitely Google unfriendly term, and don't know its English equivalent. Maybe the author of this article who significantly improved it for now, will deliver it in the article (please, not here)? First two of the three extra added references are independently written articles about the invention, not the inventor (that's why Piotr Mezyk didn't yield many Google hits I think), something like an explanation to general public in Scientific American. They start with the genesis of the research on Biofuels - a European research dud but widely sponsored by Polish government in the research institutes in Eighties and Nineties. This engine prototype is a byproduct of this research - a successful design and it works the same or even better on pure gasoline and oil than on a mixture of gas and oleo. The third one is published by a patent office - a generic patent I guess - and probably delivered by the patent holder, not much of WP:N, still worth mentioning. I hope someone speaking Polish will correct and contribute to this statement. No expert opinion is required at this time. Thank you greg park avenue (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a prime example- searching google for M4+2 engine leads to confusing results as google doesn't understand the plus. I googled for M 4 2 engine piotr, using the inventor's first name to try and throw off false hits. I got the wikipedia article and the document linked from the article and labeled as by the author, and nothing else. I googled Piotr Mezyk and got the same two links plus a word document. Google news, google scholar, google books, no hits. There's just no source to demonstrate the notability of this design. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (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.
