Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyisobutylene


 * 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 boldly merged and redirected to Butyl rubber. Bratsch e talk 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Polyisobutylene
This article is just pseudoscientific add copy for a magic gasoline additive. Contains such nonsense shilling as "Polyisobutylene as a gasoline additive works by hardening the molecules in gasoline so they combust more evenly," violates NPOV, provides absolutely zero supporting evidence for any claims being made, and is completely unencyclopedic. In addition, it's very poorly written and very disorganized. Phanatic 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Related article, Bioperformance, also up for deletion.--み使い Mitsukai 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Reminds me of those old films they used to show kids... "But how does ZINC OXIDE affect me? Well Billy without ZINC OXIDE you wouldn't have that bike, or that bottle of pop, or that switchblade...etc."  Claims in this article are wholly unsubstanited and don't jibe with the information I was able to find on Polyisobutylene.  If someone is willing to do a complete rewrite of factual, sourced information about Polyisobutylene, I would change my vote to keep.  Otherwise, I'd rather have no article at all than one that is so completely incorrect.  Think of the Children!--Isotope23 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain I've rewritten the article with verifiable scientific information. This might turn into an edit war article thouhgh if there are crusaders out there who want to use it for a platform to launch unsubstantiated claims.--Isotope23 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, one crusader, anyway :) Thatcher131 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support merge/redirect per GeorgeStepanek below. -- Krash (Talk) 04:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Note that the distributor's site refers to the article and the author has never contributed to any other article. Smells like advertising. --Craig Stuntz 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe entire information was on wikipedia BEFORE any mention of companies at the bottom. I'm sure this can be verified by some log. Where it starts, "There are two companies that..." and below that was only added recently after it was discovered that it is commercially available as a fuel additive. Therefore, it is NOT add copy. Only a tag at the bottom to list two companies that have it. Anyway, my car went from 34mpg to 43mpg at the end of two full tanks and no tuneup. It works and my personal experience is more substantial than 100% of any cynical rhetoric. It only takes 1 white crow to prove that not all crows are black. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:qiman (talk &bull; contribs) 19:10, 10 February 2006.
 * Sorry, but your personal experience is irrelevant. It's not verifiable, it's not scientifically recorded, and it is not encyclopedic.--Isotope23 19:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware even the statement here sounds like ad copy?--み使い Mitsukai 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh I have to say, Mr. A M--- of Spokane, Washington, owner of the radicalmpg.com domain, that I am completely convinced by the testimonial posted by User:qiman, Will you take an out-of-state two party bad check? Thatcher131 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Isotope23 edited the article to its bare minimum, removing all the spurious crap about magical improvements in gas mileage. It's a nobel effort, although in my opinion there now is nothing in the article now that wouldn't be better off in Isomers of butylene.  Do we really need a separate article on Polyisobutylene? Thatcher131 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support a merge to Isomers of butylene unless someone can make a strong case for keeping this as a separate article.--Isotope23 20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a little more cleanup of Isotope23's fine rewrite, and would support either a keep or a merge. bikeable (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Butyl rubber. Good rewrite guys, but we already have an article on this topic. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Boldly merged and redirected. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Put additional votes here.
 * Per GeorgeStepanek's merge/redir this AfD can probably be closed, flamewar below not withstanding. Existing article should probably be content monitored.--Isotope23 21:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy, allegations and other such amusements

 * 1, Mitsukai - Japanese or just wannabe? Anyway, yes on this page, I am aware that what I wrote sounds like ad copy, but I am simply just telling it how it is. I was simply posting my feelings to all of your responses, which to me seem totally closed minded. George Orwell's worst nightmare. The people who constantly rewrite history. But yes, I am aware of that it sounds like an ad. This is for discussion of that article and I was simply defending what I am posting. Is that not what this edit page is for?
 * First off, regardless of whether I am Japanese or not is irrelevant; I direct you to WP:NPA to learn a little more about that. Second, if, then you must realize that this is not the place for that; Wikipedia is you are aware that what you wrote sounds like ad copyan online encyclopedia, not the coupon circular in the paper.  And it is not a matter of being closed minded, it's called professionalism and adherence to what is the standard here at WP.--み使い Mitsukai 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2, are you aware that I didn't write a single word of that entire post on pib? Only about companies that do have it available. I did that because the post seemed to imply that it was impossible to get. That is why I posted what I posted. You all seemed to never have a problem with the WHOLE article this entire time. That is because you only see that someone mentions a company and all of a sudden it is ad copy? Are you aware of how ridiculous that seems to me from my point of view of never writing the article myself and being attacked for it being blamed for writing an ad and you all talk about how scientific, etc... you need to be?
 * No, when we see something that is written like ad copy regarding a company, that is when we call foul. And for the record, I never claimed any scientific response to it, as that is not my balliwick.  My expertise comes in noticing when something is advertising, journalism and creative writing.  Guess which one yours came in as.--み使い Mitsukai 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3, Craig Stuntz claims the author never contributed to any other article, so therefore it smells like an ad. Just another example of erroneous ridiculous thiking and judgement. For one, you say THE author. There were two authors. The first wrote the entire article and you can verify since you know this wikipedia better than I do that it was from somebody else. Why don't you do that and post who the original poster was? You seem to ignore that fact and point fingers at me. The second author, me, simply posted a tag at the very bottom of the page letting people know that the product is actually available. Why don't you just look at the server logs and see this since you all are so "scientific".
 * You seem to be taking this rather personally for someone who merely "posted a tag". Not pointing fingers, merely observing that detail.--み使い Mitsukai 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4, Personal experience is irrelevant? That is ridiculous. Therefore only your deskjocky non-real world testing pencil pushing ideas are real in this world but not what actually happens? Pretty hypocritical. The only thing that is irrelevant is what each person wants to believe is true. What is relevant is what is without judgement. 34 to 43 mpg is what is. What does it mean? All meaning is made up. You want to speak with logic but it is rhetoric. You want to be scientific, then be scientific and be consistant in each and every sentence. Otherwise, you are a cynical blowhard. Just have some integrity, not just conditional integrity.
 * Again, I point you to WP:NPA. You're neither doing yourself nor the article favors by being insulting.--み使い Mitsukai 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5, Just answer why didn't anyone ever have a problem with the whole article until now?


 * 6, Someone says THE author, which there were TWO, blowing any credibilty of thinking of every step that happened...anyway, I have contributed to DOZENS of articles. I can't speak for whoever did write that whole article. Anyway, it was only until a few days ago I tried to edit a page and found out I had to register so I did. I NEVER had to do that in the past. So you claim I never contributed. You see? You people are not even close to being meticulous in your facts...just cynical blowhards.


 * 7, a few resources that can substantiate EVERY claim I am making and will substantiate the gas mileage, emission reducing claims of the original article on polyisobutylene. More credibility on this ingredient than everyone in this discussion combined, obviously.


 * 8, here are a few sources, just so you know that pib DOES increase gas mileage substantially, reduce emissions and increases power. Period.

Waters, P.F. 2000. Global warming reduction by polymers in automobile fuels. American Chemical Society 220th national meeting. August 22-24. Washington, D.C.

Waters, P.F., and J.C. Trippe. 2000. New concepts in octane boosting of fuels for internal combustion engines. American Chemical Society 220th national meeting. August 22-24. Washington, D.C.

Graham Swift G.S. Polymer Consultants 215 Winged Foot Drive Blue Bell, PA 19422

Paul F. Waters Department of Chemistry American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1994/Suppl-4/hammerle-full.html http://deq.mt.gov/CleanSnowmobile/solutions/fuels/summareynp.pdf

EPA GE Case Studies ... in automobile emissions and improvements in gas mileage were observed as a result of using lightweight ... For straight oil fluids, polyisobutylene (PIB) can be added to control mist ...www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/case_studies.html

Thank you for the consideration and I hope you all are serious about being true scientific-minded people, check out the resources yourselves and educate yourselves. Thanks, Aaron

You want scientific-minded people?

 * First, please note that the user now posting as User:Qiman previously posted from 206.63.116.56. Qiman identifies himself as "Aaron."  "Aaron" is the name of the web site owner of radicalmpg.com which sells polyisobutylene under the name Bioperformance.  Even if the product was unquestionably legitimate, the seller can't write the article.  Please read the guidelines for corporate products at WP:CORP and bias at WP:NPOV.  Don't like it?  Make your own wiki.
 * Second, the fact that you were posting testimonials and defending your article without disclosing your financial interest is not in the spirit of Wiki, to say the least, and does not raise the credibility of your cause.
 * Third, the fact that you advertise your Wiki article on the radicalmpg website raises all sorts of suspicions that you are trying to use the Wiki article to create a false appearance of legitimacy.
 * And fourth, lets go to the science, since you make such a big deal of it.
 * Waters, P.F. 2000. Global warming reduction by polymers in automobile fuels. American Chemical Society 220th national meeting. August 22-24. Washington, D.C.
 * This is an abstract presented at a scientific meeting. As I know from my own research, most meeting abstracts never get published in peer-reviewed journals, and this one has not either. This particular abstract shows graphs of various benefits of putting PIB in fuel, but there is no statistical analysis, and the methods are sketchy, serious flaws in presentations of scientific work. Further detracting from the abstract's credibility is that it is hosted on the web site of a company that makes fuel additives.  It also appears that the reported fuel mileage tests were carried out at this company's facilities.


 * As far as the specific fuel mileage test results he reports, well, there aren't any. There is an acceleration test, measuring how much fuel is consumed during acceleration, but it has no statistical validity and no indication of how many times they repeated the test. The report claims that for acceleration from zero to 10 miles per hour, fuel consumption went down from 11 grams to 2 grams, an astonishing 450% improvement. But by the time you get up to a speed of 30 miles per hour the improvement is 16 versus 21 grams of gasoline, or a 30% improvement.  No results for higher top speeds are shown.  Also, no result for overall fuel mileage is reported.  They could have just filled up the tank and driven around a track for an hour. A real test would involve multiple runs on multiple cars, switching between fuels, with the fuel dispensed by someone independent from the rest of the team so that the driver and analysts don't know which test run used which fuel until it was over (see Blinding (medicine) although the concept applies to all scientific research).  I suspect there is no improvement above 30 MPH and no improvement in ordinary driving conditions.  Certainly there is no evidence here for a claim of "improved gas mileage" since they didn't measure it.


 * Regarding Dr. Waters, he is retired from the American University, and his last peer-reviewed publication was in 1986. None of his peer-reviewed work indicates a background in fuel or combustion research, until the appearance in 2000 of this abstract on polyisobutylene.  I would like to know if he is a paid consultant for the fuel additive company that hosts his research.  (Disclosures of consulting agreements is mandatory in my field of medical research.)


 * Waters, P.F., and J.C. Trippe. 2000. New concepts in octane boosting of fuels for internal combustion engines. American Chemical Society 220th national meeting. August 22-24. Washington, D.C.
 * This is simply a different presentation of the same results from the abstract. In addition, Mr. Trippe, the co-author, works for a company that sells gasoline additives.


 * http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1994/Suppl-4/hammerle-full.html
 * This is a review article from a peer-reviewed journal that discusses cleaner-running diesel engines. It notes that the use of detergents in diesel fuel, including polyisobutylene, result in cleaner exhaust emissions.  No claims about gas mileage are made.


 * http://deq.mt.gov/CleanSnowmobile/solutions/fuels/summareynp.pdf
 * This paper discusses how to make snowmobiles run with lower emissions in sensitive national parks. Synthetic oil blends that are high in polyisobutylene cut down on engine emissions. No claims about gas mileage are made, and they never even tried putting PIB in the gas.


 * Finally, your EPA citation link is broken, but I found it anyway, Here. You are correct; PIB added to machine oils does an excellent job at reducing machine shop workers exposure to oil mist. Doesn't have anything to do with fuel mileage.

Got anything else to add? Thatcher131 06:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Thatcher131

1. Listen Tom, I have a problem with you continuing to post my personal information as if you are hoping to appear smart enough to discover it? Should I do the same and post all of your personal information on this website for all to see? It was simply posted in a document on the website that I linked to. Anyone with common sense could have found it so stop trying to impress yourself with your childish investigative duties.

2. I used a nickname since some wiki note said to sign the posts. I get a nickname and sign the post and you make a point to point that out! LOL, are you seriously dedicated to just being a nuisance or do you just want to stick with the issue? Your arrogant response simply shows that you are implying or trying to accuse me of posting as someone else? If you have any common sense you can see that the user account is the same. If I was hiding, would I sign my name, Tom? or...would I sign it as an anonymous handle like thatcher131 on a continuous basis? Seems you are the one doing the hiding. Also, would I link to a website that has my contact info? That is the point to the website is for people to contact me to begin with.

To Mitsukai

1. "you are aware that what you wrote sounds like ad copy". You took it out of context intentionally or just because you aren't that observant. I said yes to this editing page by telling responding. In the PROJECT page link, the answer is NO, it didn't sound like ad copy to me. That article that allaboutpoly??? posted, was mostly information from the Washington Times newspaper article about pib. The very last part, I simply posted that it is avaiable and where to get it from!

2. "when we see something that is written like ad copy regarding a company, that is when we call foul" That is sensible and I agree with you. Before I wrote where to get it, it was perfectly acceptable. Before that, the article was the same, but only AFTER the contact info was at the bottom was the actual content "blasted". Is that not seeming hypocritically illogical? If there was any problem with that text, it should have been changed before hand. I don't mind following wiki rules, which I will read your link to the wiki commercial info, but don't you think you have a responsibility to be at least honest about what you are complaining about? Before the contact info, no problem, after contact info, the actual content of the article was called into question. That is just immature nonsense.

3. By being insulting? Basicall, being called a liar and having arrogant stupidity thrown at me about having the testimonial believable and will I accept a bad two party out of state check? Why don't you tell that to the others who are the ones that started with the insults. Don't give me your hypocritical blabber. Just be honest and balanced...not narrow minded and biased. Remember, it is the cynics here that started throwing insults. Don't pretend they didn't.


 * I thought it was all about the science. Thatcher131 03:01, 12 February 2006 (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.