Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogen fuel injection


 * 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 no consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel injection
Link container and advertisement for junk science of the Water fuel cell type. Bold claims of universities involved in this research are unsourced. --Pjacobi 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Google Scholar's only hits on "hydrogen fuel injection" seem to involve scramjets. Anville 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete  - No evidence of notability. The corporate links hint at this being a legitimate topic, but without independent published works on this technology being listed I cannot be sure of its legitimacy or its being as described. --EMS | Talk 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, 75% of the company links may be of the get-rich-quick type, and the most reputable looking one (Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company ) still has unbelievable claims. There may be a good job for investigative journalism in this, but not for an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting but almost irrelevant IMO. WP:N and WP:SCIENCE are my concerns here, with WP:CORP being a possible back door.  A notable sham is worth keeping.  A non-notable but legitmate endeavour is not.  I personally have never heard of this before.  Lacking any evidence that it is notable I must consider it to be spam. --EMS | Talk 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding applicable policies and what is relevant for the issue of deletion. you are of course right -- I'm only wondering about these claims... --Pjacobi 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to just "Delete". Opinions below raise concerns instead of settling them. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed opinion to Delete without prejudice to recreation given that additional reliably sourced articles appear or are located. I have come to realize that part of the case against this article at this time involves WP:NPOV:  This is currently a very small niche promoted by a what currently appears to be very limited minority.  However, that situation is subject to change.  Also, any new or revised article should address the "energy problem" of how one obtains more energy from injecting hydrogen than was consumned in the electrolysis of water (which is a fairly energy-intensive process). --EMS | Talk 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about the electrolysis stuff. It appears you're saying delete a sourced article, and only allow recreation if one point about one form of the topic, which is basically be a footnote, can be referenced? Is that what you're saying? Gimmetrow 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have chosen to key on a minor point. I advise dealing with the energy issue, as two editors are questioning that practicality of the electrolysis scheme for that reason.  Beyond that, I do not see this as a being a properly sourced article.  Most of your sources are not reliable and only two of them are secondary sources.  Everything about this (including your references) speaks of a non-notable technology, meaning one that has not gotten much attention.  I call for deletion without prejudice because this is a situation that is subject to change.  If this technology is as advertised, it could suddenly burst onto the scene anytime in the next few years.  Even before then it could becomes mentioned in a set of reliable secondary sources such that it should not be ignored under Wikipedia's own rules.  However, none of that has happenned yet, and as a practical matter it may never happen.  So I call for deletion based on what is and on what may be. --EMS | Talk 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a legitimate subject, it just needs a rewrite from someone who is familar with the topic. Malamockq 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT. I am willing to change my opinion, but only with evidence that this is a topic that others have taken some serious note of. --EMS | Talk 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep --Remi 08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless sources confirming university connections are provided. Lankiveil 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Unsourced pseudoscience. WP:CB if I ever saw any.  Coren 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete pending sources--it is in fact possible that the original papers exist. It is much less likely that there is any public information about any company's design or models. If so, and purely speculatively, I can imagine an article lacking the two final paragraphs and all the external links--(there is not even a claim that the tests on their system have ever been published anywhere). This may be the solution to articles using an ordinary concept and turning it into an advertisement. DGG 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some sources found from searching for a name or university mentioned:
 * Houseman J, "Lean Combusion of Hydrogen Gasoline Mixtures". Abstracts of papers of the American Chemical Society (169): 6-6 1975. (meeting abstract)
 * Hoehn FW, Baisley RL, Dowdy MW, "Advances In Ultralean Combustion Technology Using Hydrogren-Enriched Gasoline", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 11 (5): 958-958 1975. (meeting abstract)
 * Li JD, Guo LS, Du TS, "Formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 23 (10): 971-975 OCT 1998. journal site
 * From the Abstract: "A little amount of hydrogen supplemented to the gasoline-air mixture can extend the flammability of the mixture, increase the rate of flame propagation, accelerate the burning velocity of the lean mixture, thus improving the economy and emissions of engines, and enhancing thermal efficiency."
 * This article was cited once by another journal article, which included the following citation:
 * Z. Liu, Z. Meng and T. Ba, "Experimental investigation of hydrogen–gasoline mixed fuel for gasoline engines". In: Beijing International Symposium for Hydrogen Energy (1985).
 * Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, "Application of exhaust gas fuel reforming in compression ignition engines fueled by diesel and biodiesel fuel mixtures" Energy & Fuels 17 (6): 1464-1473 NOV-DEC 2003.
 * From the Abstract: "The results from the first part of the study showed that partial replacement of the hydrocarbon fuel by hydrogen combined with EGR resulted in simultaneous reductions of smoke and nitrogen oxides emissions (NO,) without significant changes to engine efficiency. In the second part of the study, it was shown that the amount of hydrogen required to achieve these beneficial effects potentially can be produced by exhaust gas-assisted reforming of the hydrocarbon fuel."
 * Also, the search link above included this patent, which may be related but I'm not sure:
 * Hydrogen and liquid fuel injection system
 * Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power. Wired.com
 * keep. Seems to meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement. Gimmetrow 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Talks given in meetings generally do not make a case for notability. At the least they normally are not independent secondary sources.  The journal presented is not one that I have ever heard of before and therefore am loathe to consider it a reliable source.  It's focus on hydrogen technology also limits the journal's ability to establish notability in a wider context.  Finally, none of the titles present use the phrase "hydrogen fuel injection".  Overall, this is so unimpressive to me that I have changed my opinion above from a weak delete to just plain delete. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I am puzzled. Before, you had never heard of this topic. Now that references have been listed for the "cite needed" tags in the article, it's in a worse condition? Perhaps, if you would look, you would find whatever type of references you want. Gimmetrow 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know this topic, but I do know a set of red flags when I see them. You have given me a set of sources all of which I can dismiss in terms of estblishing the notability of this "hydrogen fuel injection" based on my experiences with other potential neologisms in Wikipedia.  This is just the kind of stuff that I do not want to see presented as evidence of notability. --EMS | Talk 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain in detail on what grounds you dismiss each of the sources, and what these alleged red flags are. The first two were not necessarily provided as evidence of notability, but are what came up from a search on the name of the person mentioned in the article. Please also note these were not intended to be an exhaustive literature search, if that's what you want.Gimmetrow 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You just dug a deeper hole for yourself. You did not search on this "hydrogen fuel injection" business but instead on the names of related people.  That is why I saw a red flag on this list as a whole:  No direct mention of "hydrogen fuel injection", and now I see that I was right to see it.  You have provided me with no evidence of notability of this topic, amd if this is the best that you can do then I am all the more comfortable with recommending deletion. --EMS | Talk 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how to respond to this. Multiple independent refs to the topic, and you still want to delete, without any explanation of why those refs can be dismissed. You do understand how the refs relate to the article and previous comments here, yes? Gimmetrow 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue for me is establishing notability either within science (under WP:SCIENCE, or in society as a whole. Meeting abstracts, publications in obscure journals, and patents do not achieve that.  Also, these articles sseem to be on hydrogen-gasoline mixtures instead of this water-based hydrogen fuel injection business per se.  That this is out there is a given, but "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information".  You have not produced multiple independent reliable sources. --EMS | Talk 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So move article to Hydrogen enriched gasoline or hydrogen-gasoline mixtures. Gimmetrow 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I ask for a fallback position in case the article must be kept? Neither the older sources nor common sense (which we are not allowed to employ in article namespace, I know) support the claim of the struggling companies mentioned in the current articles, that less than 1kW equivalent admixture of H2 (with all the losses of electrolysis still to be subtracted) can give 4.44% fuel reduction (the company websites even quote two digit figures). Until the bold claims of these companies get significant independent support, these claims and the external links should be thrown out. --Pjacobi 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should be rewritten quite a bit, that seems pretty obvious, and Wikipedia doesn't need to repeat marketing claims. Gimmetrow 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My own hope is that the closing admin will discount the first two "keeps" as being manifestations of WP:ILIKEIT. Only Gimmetrow here has put forward a thought-out case that the article should be kept, and even it has issues. --EMS | Talk 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are "hoping" for anything either way. I would think the best hope would be to improve Wikipedia. I don't know much about Hydrogen fuel injection, but the article seems to discuss a legitimate mechanism. The article is indeed lacking some important citations, but I think that's something that can be corrected with proper clean-up. I don't think articles should be instantly deleted if they can be cleaned up instead. Malamockq 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the popular opinion, I hold that deletion is the most effective instrument of quality insurance. Especially in cases where there is hint, that the sad state of an article isn't case may be caused by Machiavelli, not Murphy alone. Seeing the incredible impact factor of Wikipedia, it is such a worthwhile traget to push your agenda or your business. --Pjacobi 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will take a bit of a middle ground here. Cleanup would ceratinly be helpful here.  However, there is also something that is very not-right about this topic.  There have been articles such as anti-relativity that could never be put into good shape becuase people with a vested interest or string opinions kept on putting their views there, and there was not enough of a community of people interested in watching the article to keep it cleaned up.  Anti-relativity was eventuallty deleted because of that.  I see the potential for a similar dynamic here.  This is a very niche topic which can easily be dominated by its proponents.  Lacking notability and therefore a reasonable level of interest by fair-minded and univolved (or at least univested) editors, it is best that this topic not be in Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems rather odd to call deletion a "middle ground", but oh well. Imagining a mere "potential for a similar dynamic" doesn't seem like a reason for deletion either. Gimmetrow 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In an of itself, that potential is not a valid reason for removal. That is why my focus is on notability.  Even then, it is possible that this may become a notable topic in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --EMS | Talk 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have never heard of the topic before, that doesn't mean it's not notable. And if you haven't heard of one journal, that doesn't mean it is obscure. That's essentially an argument from ignorance. You have multiple independent reliable sources, and many more exist, if you would bother to look for them. Gimmetrow 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I said all that I need to regarding the matter, but I would like to point out that EMS is arguing a strawman. He created an argument, "This topic could be important in the future" which no one previously stated, then they refuted it, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Just wanted to point that out. Malamockq 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources look good enough to me. Mango juice talk 16:09, 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.