Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasoline Vapor


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline Vapor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The topic is unsupported by any scientific evidence and does not meet notability criteria. This article has been self-published by User JTalbert, subject in the article, violating WP:SPS. Substantial improvements are needed and verification is necessary, though I could find no materials substantiating the claims or establishing notability. E8 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot find anything to support the article. It may be real, but after doing a Google search, I cannot find anything that explains the theory. The article should have supporting validation, technical journal entries, scientific discussion, patents, etc. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of this topic has admitted to engaging in original research here. Based on WP:NOR, this page should be deleted.--E8 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: citing self-published sources is verboten, as is publishing original research on Wikipedia. However, citing reliable sources containing original research does not conflict with Wikipedia's policies. WP:COI definitely applies here, but as stated in that guideline, conflict of interest alone is insufficient cause for removal. After the article is reduced to reliably-sourced information there may or may not be enough information to satisfy notability. –  7 4   01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are two secondary sources that have covered this topic, neither of which specialize in science, engineering, or technology. From WP:REL: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Further, it warns: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." The news reports cited for this article make no attempt posting results or data, and given that this is an engineering topic (clearly scholarly), they are not reliable within this content area. Also note the exceptional claims require exceptional sources clause associated with WP:FRINGE ; the claims made are exceptional, and the sources lacking. EDIT: The exceptional claims are made in the (remaining) cited articles. Talbert claims the device regularly provides 70mpg mileage and has accomplished 100mpg. Clearly, the sources cited are not scientific, given that they published these claims without any supporting evidence.--E8 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) EDIT--E8 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is a reasonable justification for removal (at least the top part). On the other hand, I find nothing particularly "exceptional" or "fringe-ish" about moderately improved gas mileage with engine modifications. Claims of "water-powered", "acetone addition", or "tripled gas mileage" improvements would be exceptional; reasonable engine modifications to achieve moderate gas mileage improvement would not. –  7 4   19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of the provided explanation I've struck most of my statement above. I'm still not convinced that an unused quote from a source qualifies for WP:FRINGE on the article, but the quote clearly reinforces your assertion that the source is not a reliable scientific reference. –  7 4   20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per discussion above. –  7 4   20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, since it smacks of original research, conspiracy theories, paranoia and other such undesirable and unencyclopedic concepts! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with TreasuryTag, this reeks of WP:OR.  Matt (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (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.