Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porcine petroleum


 * 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   keep. The issue of renaming can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Porcine petroleum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page title is a neologism that occurs only in the linked AP story and is not an industry or scientific term. The "technology" is a purely uncommercialized preliminary/original research from a single study. So-called "porcine petroleum" (a misnomer for specifically pig manure-derived synthetic petroleum, part of a more general process), has not been produced in commercial or economically significant quantities. Any references to this research belongs in another article. NTK (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete My investigations show that NTK's assessment is correct. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the technology is not commercialized, it is notable enough to get a media coverage by the mainstream sources. I agree that if there is better title (do you have any suggestion?), we could change it, and if necessary, we could expand it to cover more wide scope of synthetic petroleum derived from the biological waste. However, it needs a development of this article, not deletion. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep (and maybe move) - Article is sourced, there is media coverage and the subject seems worth an article in itself. The article needs love, but not deletion, for WP:DEADLINE. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If kept then rename pigs have not been around long enough to be turned into rock oil, the title is misleading. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep significant coverage in several third party sources, the fact that it is not yet commercially viable shouldn't matter for inclusion. As for the rename, the New York Times and National Geographic both simply call it 'Pig Oil'. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is of low notability but does deserve a short article. It is referenced although industry or science journal links would be preferred over news articles. It certainly needs a better name. "Porcine petroleum" is a misnomer and it gets zero hit on google scholar. A better article name, until a name become common usage, would be Pig manure derived oil or suchlike. It is more descriptive and more accurate although a little PC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:05, 25 September 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.