Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSC-Engine


 * 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. There is an option to merge some of the content to another article. Whoever is interested in doing so, please drop me a note and I'll provide the content. Tone 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NSC-Engine

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

No secondary sources, no publications listed in citation indices (except one, which has zero citations). No commercial applications (demonstrated). No coverage in the media. This is not enough for an invention to get its Wikipedia article. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As a administrator on hr.wiki and scientist myself I personally helped to create this article about NSC engine. Article is fully written according wikipedia standards, and it is fully backed up with relevant primary and secondarry sources (although, these sources were not recognised by German wikipedia because they are coming from one small country, and one small universityn, not from mighty Germany), but they are clearly wisible in the article and more secondarry sources can be added.

Whole article is not about an invention (invention is written on the page) but only about one breakthrough in that dirrection which is surely very interesting for scientists and students.

Knowing all this, I do not see any valid reason to delete this article. User Pjacoby is claiming that there is no media coverage. That is false and he knows it. There is media coverage, but not in commercial media but in scientific circles, one examšle is this year rewiew of university of Zagreb technical journal, and I clearly stated that in previous debate about this on German wikipedia. But, that is also not written in mighty German language and is not valid for German speakers. Now mighty Germans want to muscle their way here as well. Regards -- Las ta  19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Coverage in scientific and technical community can be objectively (at least objectively enough for purposes of determing relevance) quantified by using citation indices.
 * Anyway the case was clear enough to delete the article on dewiki, but different Wikipedias have different criteria for inclusion, so I hope this case get decided by the assessment of other editors, not previously involved in the case.
 * --Pjacobi (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Covered under WP:OR. Purely primary sources. No secondary source coverage. Dr.K. logos 07:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Apart from the nationalistic concerns providede by Lasta, there are simply no secondary sources available, which is way to less for a 11 year old concept. The argument, that publications by the inventors – especially by the origional autors – can be called secondary sources lacks of … about every thing. Blunt. (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability as invention does not seem notable enough, particularly due to its failure to appear in secondary sources. If, in the future, invention does become well-known and adequately-covered, it would probably deserve an article.  2help (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Replay
Exactly, I am giving nationalistic concerns, others are giving nothing, but nothing at all. All participants in this conversation are Germans all except me, so how can you accuse me of being nationalistic. At least I did not ask help of my countrymen to support me in nationalistic debate. This is continuing of misuse of Wikipedia rules, disregarding all sources, stating that they are primary sources, that there is no coverage,...User:Blunt. is even calling University publications, Quote: that publications by the inventors, which is clearly showing his regards towards Universities outside Germany. Misinterpreting everithing, just muscle way through. I will quote few wikipedia rules which are totaly neglected by all of you trying to force your way.

| In article Sources is written: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

This whole article is based on this rule, reviewed journals and books published by University, and reviewed books and journals are clearly third party sources. That I wrote on German wikipedia before and was told that mentioned University is small  (that publications by the inventors),...

Nobody tried to argue, just verdict in German stile, Delete without any real argument. Just like now. Just delete, based on fact that there are no secondarry suources?!!! | Guidances here do not qualify article for deletion, article fulfill all rules mentioned here.

Further, I am not author of this project, but I am writing about it. If somebody can say that this come under WP:OR, that is clearly misinterpreting rules, if I am not autor of project, how I can do original research?!!!

Also, I want to point one more wikipedia standard, clearly forgotten by guys above, standard that voting can not be substitute for | discussion. So just find few of friends and vote to delete this article. That is not acceptable. First we must see what independent point of view will be. Let guys from Project Engineering decide. At least they will know what is article about and they can give one good insight. And they can give independant view. Without their view, it is clear what is going on. Thanks -- Las ta  07:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment from the Engineering project talkpage. I am not involved in any way with anyone here and contrary to your assertion I am not German. I quote from WP:PRIMARY:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." You are using papers from the original authors and you are quoting them and their conclusions in the article. This goes against the quote above that: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." These are highly technical claims and noone other than the original authors have evaluated them as significant. At the same time no layman can evaluate these claims without specialist knowledge. This use of primary sources in the article is not in compliance with the policy I just quoted above. Therefore as a neutral observer I agree with the nominator that this article lacks WP:RS and thus it cannot be kept. Dr.K. logos 07:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, and I can see the your point, and I appreciate real arguments. Also I am willing to accept arguments and valid points, even if that is against my point of view. That is reason why I wanted somebody neutral, to check this article, not to be kicked from wikipedia, without real discussion. We can debate about are these all primary sources, but, that will lead us nowhere. Let be more constructive in our debate. Let see what happens if we agree that all sources are primary, and reliable, I think that we can agree on that. Now, what is remaining? Exactly what you wrote above: Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source, and Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Question in this case is, are there any interpretations based upon primary sources, are there any explanations or evaluative clams. If you read article carefully, I strictly abstained from any of these. Only part which can come under these terms is Efficiency and work production of NSC-Motors where at the beggining is written disclaimer :According to information supplied by its inventor. With that disclaimer I showed fully compliance with quoted article and therefore I do not think that article qualify for deletion. -- Las ta  10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You discriminate us for our nationality by saying we din't accept the literature because we are the mighty Germans and you come from a small country. Thats simple playing with nationalistic stereotypes and has nothing to do with an argument. In German Wikipedia we don't accept concepts that haven't spread around, I don't know about hr.wiki, but as you claim to be an administrator there, hr.wiki might differ on that one. Blunt. (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Lasta: Thank you for your kind comments and your reply. This is true. Your claims are mostly descriptive. But even if they mostly describe the content of the paper, the article fails the descriptive test:"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"In the absence of any external criticism coming from a reliable secondary source analysing the findings of these papers I don't think that a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can verify these claims. So it fails the verifiability test as described in the policy. To put it in other words: I don't think that Wikipedia can publish articles based on unverified research, even if the research is published. This research must be evaluated by reliable secondary sources before it can be used to create an article here. This research obviously has not been evaluated by any other scientists in the field, other than the principals involved. Therefore it cannot be used in the article in my opinion. As far as nationality-based arguments you may have seen from my userpage that I dislike them. I think editors should be judged according to their arguments not according to their nationality. This is or, at least, it should be the Wikpedia way. Dr.K. logos 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge The article lacks notability by itself, and the use of primary sources means that most of the technical information in the article can not be verified per WP: Primary.  However, the article describes an application of the Stirling Cycle with phase change.  This is something a layman could understand (see the thermodynamic cycles end table).

The article itself needs most of the technical information dispensed with and put into a new subsection of the Stirling Engine article, with an external link to the primary source. Then as secondary sources make the topic more notable (if and when they do), this article can stand alone. --66.181.150.22 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with such approach. Good points. Dr.K. logos 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Blunt: I did claim nationalistic view, not because I am nationalistic, but because, on de.wiki nobody said anything about article, all my attempts to argue were useless. And you tried same here. I accept any and all good arguments, as Dr.K. gave. And I can understand that in his point of veiw, article fail to meet required standards. And although I do not like his view, I am gratefull for it, and that will serve only to improve our wikipedia. And, I gave my arguments, now, I am waiting to see other arguments, but from you, here I did not see any argument except that you do not accept comcepts that haven't spread around. If that is main reason to delete an article, and that is your only explanation, combined with fact that nobody talked with me on de.wiki, then you do not need to be surprised that I had impression that this is just organized plot.
 * @Others: Thank you for participating in discussion, and for your point of view. -- Las ta  06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Lasta. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. As far as Blunt I think his expression "it has not spread around" means that there are no secondary sources which mention this engine. So, in effect, he means the same thing I said, only in fewer words. Dr.K. logos 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dr.K., you understood my point.
 * Danke schön Blunt. Auf wiedersehen. Dr.K. logos 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And Lasta, I tried to talk to you, even in english to avoid language barriers. You just didn't respond.
 * By the way: The publication of W. Servis has not been cited by anybody but W. Servis. Blunt. (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.