Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative ICE fuel generator

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. JForget 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative ICE fuel generator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams. The subject matter the article deals with already presented on alternative fuel and oxyhydrogen, it is a copy of ICE fuel conversion Mion (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the spam links / refs from this page. The remaining content is redundant with articles mentioned above, but is less inclusive (or I would suggest merging).--E8 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mion's argument is compelling.--OMCV (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear effort at whitewashing the reputation a highly dubious industry. SteveBaker (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable topic. First several pages of Google hits for "Alternative ICE fuel generator" are all wiki-clones and other non-reliable sources. No news.google archive hits either. Also per nom. This article presents a scam/science fiction as though it is legitimate technology. There's nothing here that isn't already covered more appropriately in water-fueled car and oxyhydrogen.Yilloslime ^T_C 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It is clear that the main argument against this article is that the name doesn't generate many hits in a search engine. However the article is still very important regarding energy storage; the info is focused on the production of fuels that can be produced locally (eg using water, from the air, ...). Nowhere at wikipedia is any such article present already. In addition, the information is very important regarding environmentalism. KVDP (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Yilloslimes comments. Petecarney (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for KVDP: Can you find a more suitable, notable name, and good sources? For better or worse, any topic needs to meet those criteria on Wikipedia, or it won't survive a deletion proposal. How about you develop it further at Appropedia, and find good sources, then if becomes suitable under Wikipedia's terms, it can be transwikied here? (The one problem with that idea is with attribution of the individual editors, so it may be better to develop it in your userspace here, or else do it on Appropedia and accept that it will need substantial rewriting if it's re-imported to Wikipedia - which is probably the case anyway. Happy to explain that further if needed, via our talk pages.) --Chriswaterguy talk 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already duplicated the article at Appropedia a while ago, having been a bit wary of this moment, thus the article improving was already a possibility at Appropedia, but having the article here aswell was (I believe) also very useful for the Wikipedia articles, and allowed more people to see the (indeed far from finished) info, and thus improve it faster. Regarding the name, quite franckly, I haven't found one which is used frequently used for this and thus I decided to settle with a name close towards the ones already present at other wikipedia articles. However any suggestions on the renaming are more than welcome.

KVDP (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm at risk for being called an apologist for pseudoscience but I say keep it. This is why, 1) Alternative fuels are not pseudoscience 2) The machines which produce alternative fuels are very real, diverse, and interesting 3) removal of an article should have nothing to do with the first author, but instead it should be based on the merit of the topic, 4) none of the above listed articles review, as far as I can tell, the subject of processing/producing alternative fuels 5) this topic has been making interesting news and television every Thanksgiving since I was, like, 12. Here is a discovermagazine link to this topic. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/nov/25-anything-into-oil And if you search "turning turkey blood into fuel" in google scholar you will see it already has a diverse, and peer-reviewed, literature.TheThomas (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Just to be clear, none of the articles on biofuels, alcohol fuels, alternative fuels, etc. include more than a cursory sentence about how to produce these fuels. Not simply "from corn, barley..." but the process of drying, heating, boiling, compressing is not mentioned. I know the process from a college physical sciences course I took, but I cannot see it anywhere in wikipedia links. If it does exist elsewhere, then by all means merge it--or delete if it is redundant. And, I suggest a name change. Alternative ICE Fuel Generators could be a subheading of Alternative Fuel Generators. ...where's that damn tilde...TheThomas (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (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.