Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Ogle


 * 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   delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Ogle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Thomas Ogle described in this article seems to be a non entity on google, with a mere 27 unique hits on Google, but this rises to a mighty 318 if you search for "Tom Ogle" (hits that actually reference this Tom, and not any old Tom Ogle, of which there seem to be many). And those hits that do appear are of the lowest quality for purposes of demonstrating notability. Looking at the companion article sin French and Spanish, the only good sources are a brief spurt of local news coverage when he announced his invention. He also invited a US Congressman to look at a demonstration of his invention, but, shit, I can do that. Oh, and someone shot him, and then a while later he OD'd on drugs and alcohol. Anyway, neither his life accomplishments nor the available sources show any notability (not even the wild claims that the oil companies killed him to keep his invention suppressed). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree - article should be deleted. The subject is non-notable, not to mention that there are no reliable sources. Robinr22 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. The context for this in in the Charles Nelson Pogue article, which has a considerable fuller french version. A neutral article can be written. Alternatively, add some of the basic information to the Pogue article and make a redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm confused, DGG. You're saying he's notable because he tried to improve an already notable invention? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Please I have searched Thomas Ogle and would prefer to read Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.219.169 (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but Wikipedia can't accept an article simply because you like it, see Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. If an article fails the notability guidelines and there are few to no sources to support, it will be deleted. If you want the article to stay, please improve it or search information about Thomas Ogle elsewhere. SwisterTwister   talk  22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fringe sciencey advocacy piece, which means a high bar for GNG in my book... To be fair, a Google search of "THOMAS OGLE" (exact) + "gasoline" returns nearly 5,000 hits — clustered on such sites as www.deathofgasguzzler.com, www.alien-ufos.com (no shit!), and YouTube. Fails even low bar GNG, it would seem. If sources do materialize, they should be used for a full rewrite, because this piece is a POV disaster. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have no objection to fringe advocacy provided that it is well-sourced. But this is not and is full of wild conspiracy theories that are unsourced also. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. -- 202.124.74.60 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing there to salvage Bhny (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails not only GNG but WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (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.