- 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kender engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I cannot work out whether this is a poorly written description of a genuine, might-work machine or a won't-work, perpetual motion machine. But either way round there is no evidence of notability. - Sgroupace (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Three hits returned by Google [1], one is to this article on Wikipedia and the two others to the website. Obviously not notable in any way. Equendil Talk 05:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After reading Equendil's comment, I searched the Internet concerning the technology ("Kenderv energy", "Kenderv energie" - the technology comes from France and was originally spelled "Kenderv"), and posted 5 links I found (all in French - I did not find info in English besides the two links mentioned by Equendil) on the "Kender engine" wikipedia page. Baracudai, 17 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baracudai (talk • contribs) 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah you can find a few pages in French, some self published stuff, a few forum threads and a short article in a regional newspaper, still not notable by any stretch. Equendil Talk 22:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't sure about this, so I looked at Stirling Engine, which this engine is apparently a derivative. Stirling is a member of WP:PHYSICS and WP:TECHNOLOGY, so I added this AfD to those project pages, in order to garner more feedback. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep...for now: I don't know about notability. I never heard of this, and it looks like a self-promotion article. I'll give it a quick rewrite to remove whatever blatant cruft I can, but I can't judge wheter or not this is a legit technology, or even notable. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Lazulilasher (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Mainstream media coverage seems thin on the ground. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 22 September 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.