Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A'PEXi PowerFC

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. Wizardman 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A'PEXi PowerFC

This appears to be a cut/paste of ~~the technical specs and/or installation manual~~ the description of every setting in the PowerFC (per comment below) for this automotive product. Not encyclopedic material per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:SPAM, not to mention the unreadable format, lack of introduction, and no context. —Travis ^talk 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (although dont remove yet I have the following updates to make)

I have noticed that the style of the article is not yet appropriate...
I intend to reference the footnotes back into the text when I work out how to do it
I also intent to change the style from instructive to descriptive
I would also like to reference the (brake specific) fuel consumption and gas (pressure and volume) equations back into the wikipedia

Robert Blandford (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the correct place to put this but this page is not a cut/paste of an instruction manual, technical spec or an installation manual --- it is a description of every setting in the PowerFC. At best it is probably to specific/detailed—Robert Blandford ^talk 15:21 + a bit, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the clumbsy formating has been removed
A leading paragraph has been added
Some external references have been added

Robert Blandford (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & question: Well, you've certainly don't a lot of improvement on the article. :) Although I'm afraid that a good bit of the content remains inappropriate for Wikipedia (it still looks like a manual—not a how-to, but a much overly detailed description of features for an encyclopedia), that's not necessarily a matter for deletion so much as a matter for clean-up for conformance to WP:MOS. I'm considering whether or not I am ready to change my opinion on whether or not the article should be retained. You've added two reviews, here and here. Those are the kind of thing to help demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Are you aware of any other reviews or features in independent sources? Print sources may also be cited, if they are not on the internet. I'm not sure if additional is essential, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is demonstrated with reliable sourcing. I heartily agree that as it is the article lacks sufficient context for a Wikipedia article; I sought clarification on this at the talk page a few hours ago. Clean-up is not necessarily a good reason for deletion, but it's hards to determine what this is all even about as it is, much less if it is notable. (I found one trivial reference in google news, here; scanning through regular google results, I did not see anything of significance in a reliable source in the first 10 pages of results.) I'll be keeping an eye on this AfD and the article in case further work alleviates my concerns and changes my opinion about the viability of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context, and not really enough to make into an encyclopedic article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not a cut and paste of anything and the subject matter is more than enough for an encyclopedia topic ... Robert Blandford (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just a left note for you at your talk page after removing your most recent "hang on" tag from the article. I'd like to reiterate here that I think it would serve you well to read over the notability guidelines (WP:N and WP:CORP are guidelines of relevance here) and make sure that your article demonstrates that this product meets them. I'd hate for you to be wasting your time. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Although most of its content is unencyclopedic, it may have some potential. Unencyclopedic sections should be removed, and if the remaining content is enough, just tag it as a stub. Victor Lopes (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The formatting of the article has improved immensely since creation, however, it is still not Wikipedia material. The article consists primarily of technical information about a product. Yes, it is reference material, but Wikipedia is not a technical manual, it is an encyclopedia. Also, even after all of the cleanup, the article still lacks independent reliable sources showing evidence of notability of the product. —Travis ^talk 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am guessing that the class of 'textbook' being applied..?

I have endeavoured to remove all instructive comments... if any remain then they should be removed. It appears that objection is being made about the level of detail in the description of the unit.
A agree that the sections on turbo sizing and power calculation should be removed... as they do not relate to the product
With regards to notability --- at the time the Apexi PowerFC was brought to market (1992), the number of plug and play programmable ECUs available could be counted on the fingers of one hand. One other company that pre dates Apexi is Motec from Australia (1987) --- but there product was not plug and play until later. I will need to add these details to the page the source is on from the company web sites... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Blandford (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.