Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposed four engines


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposed four engines

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

The subject of the article is already covered in the articles Flat-4 and H engine. The author is trying to create a term to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines. The term he has created is not only non-notable, it is also confusing for those looking for the article Opposed piston engine No signature (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete once again Wikipedia is the proud father of a neologism with ZERO Google hits elsewhere, not even a mirror. Drawn Some (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a completely non-notable subject, causing confusion in two genuine articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge or something. The term is used and is a type of engine as evidenced by this.  So the above statements that it is a neologism with zero google hits is incorrect.  Note that the article title is plural which is contrary to the manual of style, and a search on that string in quotes turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, don't take my word for it, try it yourself, it's up to four hits total all on Wikipedia because of this AfD. Google search for "opposed four engines" Your Google book page is not viewable by me and it would still be a neologism. Are you sure it's not a typo or something? Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need this search. I don't know why the Google Book link doesn't work for you. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 21 total references to it in the singular all of which are completely trivial with no discussion of the concept. The count Google gives is higher than what it actually produces, even looking at "similar pages". Drawn Some (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Google Book link is working now, Google has algorithms and rules for restricting the display of copyrighted content, probably I couldn't look at it because you just had. That is a non-trivial discussion, are there any other non-trivial references available?  All of the web references are trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the issues raised by SamBlob. Perhaps the page should be treated as a sort of disambiguation page with a very brief description and then pointing towards the in-depth articles.  With the references available this will never be much more than a stub without WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is clear that the nomenclature is used, but there's not a lot in substantial referencing. Converting to a disambiguation page given the current sourcing seems to be a viable solution. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is a fork, containing nothing that won't be duplicated from either the H-4 or flat four articles. And a trivial fork at that, getting only about 1% of the Google hits that "flat four" gets. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging is not viable because almost the entire article comes from an earlier version of Flat-4 when User:R69S decided to confuse the flat-4 and the H-4. After his references to H-4 engines were deleted from the flat-4 article, he set up an article of his own to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines, both of which are adequately represented in their respective articles.
 * What is an opposed four engine? Is it a flat-4?  If so, it's covered.  Is it a four-cylinder H-engine?  If so, it's covered, and if that article isn't enough, then the article H-4 engine can be created, although I'm not sure how notable the H-4 configuration is.  Is it a four-cylinder opposed piston engine? I don't think so, as the text of the article does not mention these engines.  Is it an ambiguous term used by User:R69S so that he can have a single article about both flat-4 engines and H-4 engines?  That's what it sounds like to me!
 * At the very least, this article should be redirected to Flat-4, although I'm not sure who would search for a plural title. No signature (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect Having read the source shown by Whpq, I realize that it is referring to the flat-4 engine. No signature (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * keep Having a n article on the general type of engine should not be precluded because the major sub-types already have pages. Even if the title is a neologism, it could still be used as a descritpive article title, and the article is not about a neologism, clearly this type of engine has existed for a while. If any merging occurs, it should be in the opposite direction, moving the sub-articles into this one, but that is an editorial decision that should be based on utility.YobMod 10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is not about a general type of engine. It is about two different types of engine grouped together under an ambiguous term.  The supposed "opposed four engines" [sic] covers the flat-4 and the H-4 engine, which are two entirely different configurations. No signature (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The H-engine was, once upon a time, a good way to get the maximum power in a compact envelope for use in aircraft, stuffing 16 or 24 cylinders together into a very small space. Only one person/manufacturer has ever tried to apply this principle to a 4-cylinder (70 years ago) and he may have made 5 of them. In order to accomodate this vanishingly rare (if not trivial) event we have to have an article that will forever confuse other significant articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:39, 8 May 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.