Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiftfuel


 * 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   a weak consensus to keep. While there was certainly a strong mandate here to keep the article, it is currently unsourced and the problems brought up by the nominator were not addressed, and I wish the close to reflect the fact that the arguments in favor for keeping, while numerically superior, were largely inferior on their own and this article will require proper sourcing to avoid this situation again. Shereth 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Swiftfuel

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

Google search shows 93 ghits, but no significant coverage in reliable sources, google books shows no ghit. Fails WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it fail WP:RS? The PBS article is written by Robert_X._Cringely, who has a column with PBS and other tech websites, as well as having written for "The New York Times, Newsweek, Forbes...". Also, additional articles are now linked in the external links.

It is hard to find more details on the manufacture process and other reliable information on swiftfuel right now, but I think more press will cover it soon, especially since Slashdot just put it on their frontpage. The Swift Enterprises company website is down because of the Slashdot effect, which is why many details aren't here yet.

The first major press release was on June 9th, I think there will be a lot more over the next few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetpeach (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The company and its product may well become notable in future, but inclusion now when press releases and news coverage are just beginning seems like self-promotion. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I heard about the stuff and came hear looking for information that was not in the company press release. The article can be improved, but I would give it a chance. Xlation (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Google yielded 1400+ hits. Many of them are press releases. I would reopen this one in about a month. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Nothing new with this has appeared in the last few days. This is at best vaporware and at worst a hoax. The company does not have an actual product to market (nowhere are there instructions on where one can buy this product or futures for it), and the only claim to notability is the re-reporting press buzz. This article can be re-created when this fuel does come to market (if ever). HatlessAtless (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is confirmed, but the article needs a good rewrite. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lacking reliable sources is a terrible reason to delete an article, but a great reason to find and add reliable sources! With the recent press, lots of people will want to know whether SwiftFuel can live up to the hype. We need more information about this, not less! OldMan (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I came here looking for information on this precisely because of today's reference in a significant media outlet. Ergo, there should be an article on it here. Carboncopy (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There should be an article. Here is where people come to find more information than is in a magazine article. @fella that said 'Delete', the article just needs to be non-biased. --Theeldest (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete From the little I've read, it sounds likely that SwiftFuel is an ethanol-butanol mix. Until the makers either put up a formula or a patent, this trademark is nothing more than hype, and not deserving of its own article. 24.19.238.74 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gas prices are forcing innovation of new fuels. There are some already: SwiftFuel, Butanol, Vegetable Oil, etc, etc. I doubt that there is going to be much more information available on each of these in the near future (probably not enough for full articles on each). However, one article with sections for each may be more plausible. --Theeldest (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please only !vote once. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a lot of hype right now and people want a place to read up on the product. If no useful information is added after a month the article should be merged into a list with other alternative fuels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstableBrew (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has very little content, but if it is deleted, that goes to zero. Right now, there are very few sources of information, or even places to go find information, about this topic.  If this article is abandoned, it is akin to abandoning the arena to marketing interests.  However, if more information is not forthcoming about this topic, I will change my mind, and my position. NReitzel (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but clean up and source. Just notable enough for inclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep SwiftFuel is a drop in replacement for aviation fuel and has no ethanol in it. Regardless, an article is a good idea.  The press has picked up this company and I feel we're going to learn more and more about it and it's products in a very short period of time.  -- Silverhand Talk 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a repository for additional information as it becomes availalbe--be that either a details of the process, or damning of the hype. In either case people come to Wikipedia for answers, just as I did. KevAvatar (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, expand and improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.54.227 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This page will grow fast as info trickles out. We've only had 7 days for people to start asking questions. Emteeoh (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This information is critical to aviation interests currently in crisis because outside the US, aviation gasoline availability is evaporating. In developing countries where NGOs use light aircraft for mercy/relief work avgas is often unavailable and has to be shipped in at a cost of over $20 USD/gallon ($6/l) Swiftfuel is not a phantom or theoretical fuel; the company has Youtube videos of tests using this fuel as a transparent replacement. Speaking as a business pilot and certificated flight instructor, the prospect of a lead-free 104 octane, low-emissions, zero-carbon fuel that provides up to 20% improvement in specific fuel consumption/range is crucial information. as many aviation people as possible need to know about this product and its future potential. Lastly, this is an emerging technology; what better venue to be a clearinghouse for information than Wiki? Voicewr 01:38, 14 June 2008 (PDT)


 * Keep Needs improvement.  The topic has been slashdotted, and aviators wish for the fuel (see above).  I agree with KevAvatar.  At this time, I don't see any better article in to which to merge this information.  Right now, Swiftfuel seems the logical place to organize emerging Swift Fuel information. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as some of the references provided in Swiftfuel indicate sufficient coverage of this fuel in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:10, 17 June 2008 (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.