Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quasiturbine

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 of the debate was delete, and deletion was performed on 3 Dec 2004, see Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/December 2004 (1). At the time there was strong consensus to delete. However the debate was for some reason not closed, the article was subsequently recreated and not speedy deleted, and several keep votes subsequently added. IMO the article should now either be kept, or renominated for deletion. Andrewa 20:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quasiturbine

I believe this classifies as original research, as it doesn't appear to be a "proven" invention. --Wolf530 14:57, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising/press release for what seems to be private research. Geogre 18:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is original research, and this article is a badly written summary of it. As has been stated on previous VfD discussions, Wikipedia is not a way of bypassing peer review. Inky 20:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete fvw* 23:06, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Delete --jni 13:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite, it's pretty horrible right now. The quasiturbine itself seems notable enough. I myself have gone looking for info on the quasiturbine before, having heard of it back when I was curious about stirling engines. A neutral wikipedia article, cutting through some of the hype and self-promotion, would have been quite useful to me. The web site listed has links to numerous articles on the quasiturbine in automotive magazines and the like. [1] Seems to have won a few minor awards. Over 750 google hits and over 1000 google groups hits. Wolfman 16:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• We probably should have an article on this eventually, but this article cannot stand as it is. If no one will step forward to rewrite it now, then what choice do we have but to delete it? {assistance} won't do here, I'm afraid. -leigh 10:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Rewritten Article as been completely re-written. --Ylian 23:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep its a good article now. Maybe a case of merit outweighing the original research argument. The person who wrote the article seems to be one of the patent holders (???). Duk 00:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• What happened to the article that had the VfD tag on it? It doesn't even appear in the history of the current article, which has its earliest edit date of 12/7. On 12/9 an anonymous user added references to the quasiturbine to numerous articles as if it were an available, perfected technology. It is unclear to me how far along this technology has come. All in all, this seems a bit too much like a promotional effort. -Willmcw 21:26, 10 Dec 2004 (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.