Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scuderi Split Cycle 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 Keep per several editors' intentions to thoroughly clean up. The longer the closure takes, the longer it will take to get on with it. If the article still does not come up to standards after the clean-up, it can, of course, be brought back to AfD. It should also go without saying that any conflict of interest editing or disruption will be fully monitored and acted upon accordingly during this and any future process. Bubba hotep 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Scuderi Split Cycle Engine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has turned into nothing but a promotional piece for the Scuderi group. Its is written from the perspective of the company and likely by members of the company. Its only source that is not the company's web site turns out to be a reprint of the company's own literature so is hardly reliable. The Scuderi engine exists only in theory, as a working prototype has never been produced. Acces to the computer simulations the company claims shows their engine is a major breakthrough are apparently only available if you sign an NDA first. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor is it an appropriate place to promote a speculative technology. Until independent and reliable sources have had the chance to review a working engine and report their findings, I don't believe we should be hosting this article Gwernol 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky one, and I'm glad you are watching this article. It undoubtedly is a technology that is being worked on very seriously, and for all I can tell may well be viable. (he said politely, I doubt it actually). As such, there is no doubt in my mind that it deserves an article. BUT. The behaviour of the current active editor is extremely poor, in a Wiki context. Obviously actions like deleting the AfD and No Sources boxes are completely unnacceptable, and many of their other edits have needed reverting. So, perhaps we have an editor problem more than an article problem? Deleting the article to punish a rogue editor seems spiteful more than helpful. Greglocock 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this one is tricky. I started working on this article in June 2006, so I have some history with it. Unfortunately it is increasingly becoming clear that the claims made in the article are currently unproved. It might be possible to reduce this to a stub, containing the bare minimum of verifiable information and removing all future predictions of performance, but I fear it would soon be overrun again by the Scuderi company. If the community would prefer that approach I'm happy to jump in and do the trimming work. The question is, would there even be enough left to have a viable article? Gwernol 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I worked up a quick draft of a minimalist version of the article. This would need proper sourcing, but I believe we could do that from the Wired article. Everything else would be removed. Is this worth having? Gwernol 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work, but I think I stand by what I said below. That article does not actually assert the notability of the subject. J Milburn 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no assertion of notability, and the article is in breach of WP:V, quote- "Salvatore Scuderi is president of Scuderi Group, LLC and has released all information above either at various investor meetings and/or on company websites. Some material such as Steam Engine Turbine capability does not have attributions online because the technology has not yet been published on their website because of how recently it was patented." J Milburn 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (comment moved from top of page): I would like for you to explain to me what exactly you are proving by having this removed from the system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sg300c (talk • contribs).
 * What we are doing is trying to keep this an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is the summarization of work that has been published and reviewed in reliable sources. If you read the list of things that Wikipedia excludes you'll see that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". At present almost all the material in the article is speculation that cannot be verified from independent sources because there is no working prototype that has been independently studied. All the claims in the article are speculation and worse, most of them are speculation by the Scuderi group itself, hardly an unbiased source. Gwernol 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "While no working prototype of the engine exists" -- if it ever does, and if anyone outside the group actually writes about it, then it will be time for an article. DGG 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I understand the position you are stating but please try to understand that because this is so new and there is no prototype completed YET! I cannot prove to you it's legitimacy. I was simply just trying to spread the word about the new technology becuase it has such great potential to revolutionize the engine market. I am not part of the company either I am engine buff that reviewed the technology and invested in it because I see a homerun on this technology. Having said that if you still feel it needs to be removed then so be it, but just remember what the Scuderi Engine is. Even though this is here say everything in document is correct and it will only be time before it can be proven to you aswell. Have a good day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sg300c (talk • contribs).


 * Delete or Rewrite It does read like an ad, but the split-cycle engine concept does exist. The removal of 99% of the mention of the Scuderi Group would make this ad closer to being an article. A few independant links to split-cycle engine concept pages and news articles would make this article complete.--Lostcause365 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It may seem like an ad but that is not the purpose. The true reason why Scuderi Group is mentioned so much about this specific design is because out of all split cycle designs in the past this design has many different features that that cannot be compared to older split cycle designs. Their name is used a lot simply to show credit where credit is due. No other person has done what the Scuderi's have done and I think they should be given credit for that. News articles about this specific technology can be added if neccessary.--sg300c 03:41, 1 April 2007


 * Weak keep. Full disclosure: I did the diagram a while back, when I was hitting random article and looking for something interesting. Does it have more than non-trivial press coverage? Yes. Should the article be re-written, to make clear who's making the claims ? Yes. The article should probably have inline citations tags for all of the claims. I think it's a case of improve, rather than delete - however. I'll try to make some appropriate changes now. Megapixie 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * keep. I respect you Megapixie for your insight on this. Yes I agree myself that it is not fully referenced correctly but at this time it is a bit difficult to do so since it is such new technology. As time goes on it will get better and better especially with a prototype on the way. For the time being I have referenced all the claims as by Salvatore Scuderi to a video that explains the technology in a creditable way. I also agree Megapixie that for the time being your revision to the listing was well done. As the technology becomes more established it can be transistioned back into a more verified state.--sg300c 21:37, 1 April 2007


 * Do you realise that your persistent editing/vandalism is /increasing/ the probability that this article will be deleted? Please read up on wiki policies before editing again. Greglocock 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. WP:ATT is lacking; WP:N questionable. Morenooso 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment "As the technology becomes more established it can be transistioned back into a more verified state." So by this statement you are saying that the article cannot be rewritten from a neutral viewpoint with multiple sources not connected to the Scuderi group? ...almost like you're endorsing the AfD... just food for thought--Lostcause365 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Response No that is not what I was saying. I was simply stating that as the technology becomes more established it will become more verified with information that can be referenced. I never stated who would be verifing it. I can tell you though at that point the Scuderi Group won't even have to be writing about it anymore.sg300c 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can tell you though at that point the Scuderi Group won't even have to be writing about it anymore. So now you verify a conflict of interest? --Lostcause365 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Response No it is not a conflict of interest. It is like anything else that is new, it's a process that needs to take place. You have a small company making such big claims about something they've invited of course there will be skeptics. The thing is most of the general public doesn't even know about this technology or understand how it works. So I was saying once again that as the technology progresses and becomes more known it will then get more creditable to the everyday person.sg300c 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It most definitely is a conflict of interest. Please read our guideline on conflicts of interest, note it says "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". The Scuderi Group should not be editing this article and particularly they should not be adding unverifiable claims to it. This is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Gwernol 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Ok I'm confused when you say, "The Scuderi Group should not be editing this article...". No one person from the Scuderi Group has ever created or edited any part of this article. I am not part of the Scuderi Group and all my claims have come from media sources or their website. I'm also a little confused as well because your saying the information isn't verified but it is. All the information in this article are claims by the Scuderi Group themselves and is verified by themselves. No other sources can deny that so I don't understand why the article can't just be verified by the ones who created it and have that be the end of it.sg300c 17:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First please read the conflict of interest guidelines. They say "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you". You've admitted you have a financial interest in the Scuderi Group. That's a classic conflict of interest. On the subject of sources, material provided by the Scuderi Group does not count as a reliable source. Please read our guidelines on reliable sources. The subject of an article is not itself a reliable source. You have not verified the information because the only source are the claims of the Scuderi Group. Until there is independent sources that confirm these claims, they cannot be reported in Wikipedia. Again an encyclopedia is a summarization of the opinions and facts collected by independent authors about a subject. If an article could be "verified by the ones who created it" we would have to publish everything, with absolutely no quality control and no way for readers to find out if what was included was true. There are hundreds of free web hosts where you can add this kind of information. Wikipedia is not one of them. Gwernol 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Response Ok fair enough. It's not a big deal whether it stays on or not I just thought it was cool to post it on wikipedia. I guess it's just not ready for an encyclopedia yet and I understand that. I don't want to edit it anymore because it would ruin the information I wanted to address so if it doesn't meet your standards do what you would like.sg300c 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to delete the article because the prototype has not been completed. A respected think tank with expertise in engine technology (Southwest) has weighed in as has the industry press.  The article needs to make clear a working prototype has not been completed but deletion is not the answer.  If Wikipedia existed during the Apollo mission, would it have been inappropriate to have an article on it prior to landing on the moon because up until then, it was theoretical.  No, the effort itself was newsworthy even though landing a man on the moon was at that point theoretical.--CSvBibra 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find third party verification of claims then those should go into the article as references. Promotional videos from a company that is raising money from investors are NOT reliable sources for technical claims. So, where is the industry press on this? I don't mean autoblog, I mean the automotive industry press - I've looked, and guess which industry I work in. Greglocock 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to Greglocock Response to me: I always thought of Automotive Engineer Magazine, Motor Trend, and Wards Auto as part of the automotive press which are referenced in the article. --CSvBibra 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's odd, Wards and AE should be in the library, but I didn't get a hit on "Scuderi", apart from one SAE paper that he co-authored (nothing to do with this engine). Well, if there are third party references in those two mags that is good. Greglocock 05:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to CSvBibra I agree with you 100%. I am in favor of the Scuderi Group and hope their technology takes off successfully but the other's on this site are very closed minded and want 100% clear cut data proving it before it's listed and are fighting to get it removed. I don't really care anymore since it's not important to have it on here for the success of the technology anyways. I was just trying to provide some more indepth information about what I know. They don't like that on wikipedia so I chose to stop arguing the fact of whether to keep it on or not anymore. I've planned to just go somewhere else where people want to hear about new technologies.sg300c 19:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Reasons: 1. It is clearly a future product. 2. The fact that there is no prototype is especially significant in light of the fact that it is claimed to be "easily manufactured using existing processes." If it would be so easy to manufacture in series production, it seems fairly strange that they have yet to manufacture one. 3. NPOV is impossible when the source of ALL the information on this engine is from Scuderi Group, and one must sign a non-disclosure document to even view the full range of this information. If one has enough information to criticize the model, one can't discuss it, so we're limited to all the news Scuderi's PR people deem fit to print. That's simply not what this venue is for; the Scuderi booster/investor crowd is confusing Wikipedia with PR Newswire. Until they finish their prototype and/or supply enough data to allow honest debate about the engine, it should go.Meersman 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Here is a magazine that recently posted information about split-cycle engines for April. The magazine is called Techbeat. http://www.scuderigroup.com/news_and_events/pdf/tlt_techbeat_4_07.pdf sg300c 14:35 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry to continue to attack your points, but they always seem to have flaws. The "independant source" you quote is on the Scuderi Group website. It would need to be linked from a non-scuderi website.--Lostcause365 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on, the file is hosted at scuderi, but the original article is from an independnet source. I think that's OK Greglocock 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Response Yes Greglocock is correct. It is only hosted on Scuderi's website because it is a scan of the magazine article, but yes it is an independent source. I also have an article from popular mechanics with their technology listed. I will try to get it on soon if I can. I'm taking all your advice by getting more independent sources listed because the sources are there. Sg300c 18:52 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the article may be said to come from Techbeat, it still does not meet the independant source argument because it is hosted on the Scuderi website. Anything posted on a company website can and usually will be biased towards that company. Just like you wouldn't trust a tobacco company to represent their products in a fair, unbiased and equitable manner, the Scuderi group website cannot be counted upon as a source of unbiased coverage. Who is to say that the article wasn't modified? Not that I believe is was, but the fact of the matter is that any website, company mailer, internal document, or other media with a direct connection to the Scuderi Group cannot be considered an independant source. I am still sorry that this response (and many of my others) sound like personal attacks towards sg300c. I apologize. It is just that all of your arguments are ripe for rebuttal. I still think the article is deletion-worthy, however your repeated efforts to improve the article may yet save it. It is still in need of major revisions and independant sourcing.--Lostcause365 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification Response The name of the magazine is “Tribology & Lubrication Technology Magazine “ (Techbeat is the section) which is published by Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. The magazine appears to be available online to members of the society only so it appears impossible to link the article directly.--CSvBibra 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Response I've read every article that's been linked to in relation to this article in talk or in this deletion discussion, including this "Techbeat" piece. Each has done one of two things, either: 1. Uncritically put out the Scuderi Group talking points, citing the easily solved "problems" with the concept while ignoring the more significant and obvious ones, or 2. Put out the Scuderi points and had a critic talk about how hard it will be to commercialize the engine because of how the industry is structured, which has nothing to do with the concept itself. The weight of Scuderi's tearsheet file isn't relevant to the existence of independent analysis of the concept; the ability of their PR flacks to get stuff placed doesn't mean an independent source has ever looked at it critically. (Again, the root of this problem is Scuderi's non-disclosure agreement. If you have the data to criticize, you can't do it publicly. Why such secrecy if the concept is so well patent-protected?) Meersman 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 09:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment So essentially this debate boils down to "There are independant sources for this article but you can't see them." If this is true, the article must be deleted as unencyclopedic. Any source cited should be freely available for review and verification. Thank you for the clarification CSvBibra. --Lostcause365 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am astonished to hear that the webhost is a consideration when considering whether an article can be considered as a source. Can you point to a policy that states that the website hosting a reproduction of an article in an independent magazine is important? FWIW at considerable expense I could order up that copy of AE and check that it does contain the article, but that is not the problem is it? Greglocock 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know for the longest time I thought your handle was Greg O'Clock? All I was saying was that it does not speak well for the independence of a source when it is hosted by the very comnpany we are trying to limit the influence of in the article. I apologise for making such a sweeping statement.--Lostcause365 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete the article After much thought I came to the conclusion that we should just remove the article to resolve all this conflict involving citing sources, ect. I would rather not have it on wikipedia anyhow since this site itself really isn't taken as a verifiable media to most people. Everyone who agrees to this response just respond below.Sg300c 15:30 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of deleting but if it is, I would like as a plan of action to agree to reinstate as soon as a working protype is complete.--CSvBibra 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Fair plan I think to satisfy everyone it will be removed from wikipedia now, and reinstated when the working prototype is completed.Sg300c 17:17 5 April 2007


 * Agree Good plan. I look forward to viewing the revised article.--Lostcause365 21:42, 5 April 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.