Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiftfuel (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC) more of a no consensus, on reflection, but the default is to keep. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails both WP:Crystal and WP:NOTE. FAA has published no information on this topic, including no information on claimed testing. No building permits have been issued nor applied for the supposed pilot plant. While the company has applied for a patent, the patent has not yet been granted, and patents do not grant notability, much less patent applications. No 3rd party source has established performance or notability beyond the press buzz. If the pilot plant building permit is granted, the article can be recreated. Until then, this is nothing more than vaporware. Original closer of AfD noted that the arguments in favor of keeping were heavily loaded with large numbers of WP:ILIKEIT !votes with inferior arguments. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As a side note, the supposed "2500 sq foot pilot plant" is microscopic as far as industrial facilities of that type go. How they plan to store, process and manage all of the chemicals, organic materials, fermenters, and related stuff in such a tiny space is highly suspicious. Locating the pilot plant at an airport seems to indicate that they intend to market the fuel product there, but with the size of the plant, this seems unlikely or at best a marketing stunt. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When something potentially dubious is highly notable, having an encyclopedic entry like this about claims and problems is better than nothing, although it may be prone to disputatiousness.. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the initial press buzz, patent applications, nor the grandiose statements about a pilot plant and big plans are sufficient to establish notability at all. Not only is this not "highly notable" as you state, this is not notable at all. After the initial press buzz in June, not a single significant 3rd party mention of the fuel appears on google separate from re-reports of the initial buzz. It is well established that initial press buzz does not establish notability. More importantly, having a wikipedia article lends legitimacy to the product which does not exist yet in a meaningful way. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about ephemeral notoriety vs. notability. Frankly, I don't like the article, but consider it a borderline case because Cringely gets noticed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cringly does get noticed, but if you read his article on energy issues (since the article isn't about swiftfuel) he only mentions the stuff and refrains from making any claim about whether or not this is any good. To me that's an important consideration, because even though PBS and Cringly are considered a reliable source, mere mention in a reliable source (even though its a pretty big mention) when the article is on another topic (energy independence) this is not something I would put down as establishing real notability. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete. What to do when the reliable sources are wrong? Who knows. In the end I lean towards delete because there seems to basically be ONE source -- the Cringely one. However, keeping would not be a disaster, as long as the article makes clear that there's really nothing beyond the name. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article has sources, although primarily it's Cringely as noted. The thing is, the article that the sources would let us write is not encyclopedic. There really isn't anything to say other than "this product might be made, and if so, it might be a big deal". So, we have the fairly rare situation in which the sources that provide the article's notability don't really confirm verifiability of its claims. If you strip the article down to what is verifiable, there's not much left. No prejudice to another article when new sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The fact remains the AFD was closed with a keep decision only 2 months ago, making it too soon for an AFD renomination. I agree there are issues that need to be addressed with the article, but time needs to be given for such improvements to be made. I've no objection if the article is renominated in another few months if improvments have not been made. 23skidoo (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is hardly "too soon" for a renomination, especially considering the weaknesses in the keep decision and the fact that no new information on the topic has materialized in the last two months to substantiate either notability or, really, verifiability. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side not, the article has undergone massive revision between the original AFD closure and now (with myself adopting the article as an active editor, among others). Currently the article contains all information on the topic, and is not likely to be improved further without new information coming to light. I have no objection to the article being recreated once sufficient information comes to light such that the article meets wikipedia inclusion criteria. Check the page history and look at the changes between the old afd version and the current one to see what improvements have been made. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  • Does not violate WP:NOTE Topic is notable, as evidenced by buzz in Aviation news. Article should be improved to show relevance to the 100LL problem -- if Swiftfuel fails, some planes will be unable to fly as there will be no fuel for them when 100LL is banned in 2010. --SV Resolution(Talk) 03:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not violate WP:Crystal. Local newspaper reporter verifies that product's owners have met with local government officials and airport board in public meetings (July 24), and are on the agenda for a future meeting (August 28).
  • Claim that "2500 sq foot pilot plant is microscopic as far as industrial facilities of that type go" is not supported by evidence, and do not support statment that the company's claimed product development plans are a "suspicious" "marketing stunt".
  • Finally, for those tired of alternative energy failures, scams, and hoaxes, the article can show whether the company can meat meet its stated short-term product development goals, with 6-month and 1-year horizons. If the product fails or is exposed as a scam or hoax, the topic, still notable, can be merged into a new article on alternative energy failures, hoaxes, and scams. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • First, there is no "100LL problem" as such, and Swiftfuel is not a major player in any case, for three reasons. First, the FAA/EPA can extend the waiver at any time. Second, alternative high-octane fuel options are available commercially that do not contain lead, such as E98. Granted that they have a lower energy density than 100LL, but this means that swiftfuel is not our "only hope" for a 100LL replacement. Third, swift enterprises is not in a position to have any kind of supply chain in place for the expiring waiver in a year and a half.

• • • Second, the initial press buzz establishes temporary notoriety, not lasting notability, see WP:NTEMP. The press buzz has established a certain level of visibility. However, should this fall through or fail to get off the ground, no one will remember this years from now, hence the invocation of WP:CRYSTAL.

• • • Third, what we have verified is that a meeting is scheduled for Aug 28. Just as being able to verify that a meeting is going to take place does not satisfy the dual requirement of both notability and certainty per WP:FUTURE. First, mere mention in a single reliable source as part of press buzz (Cringely) is not sufficient to establish notability. Even given that, with no building permit applied for, no patent granted, only applied for, this is still to speculative.

• • • Fourth, Claims that a 2500 sq foot pilot plant is unsupported by evidence: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_ethanol_plants.htm is just one of many sources that allows one to look at similar industrial processes and approximate yield per square foot. At typical biorefinery sites, 3-10 gallons per square foot per year is typical. This means that the pilot plant could produce a maximum of 25000 gallons of 100LL per year. To give one an idea of how tiny this plant is, 2500 square feet can be visualized as a square 50 feet on a side. That is only the size of a moderate chemistry lab classrom! Claiming that my assertion is not supported by evidence, particularly without providing counterevidence, only obscures the underlying reality of my statement regarding the size of the plant.

• • • Finally, in terms of its short term development goals, per WP:NOR this topic will be sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia when it has met those goals, and reliable sources have reported on it. This is the very definition of WP:NFT, where swiftfuel is something made up in a lab one day.

HatlessAtless (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the 5 points from User:HatlessAtlas above:

1. 100LL is a problem for small aircraft owners. GA news organizations call this "one of the biggest problems facing GA". This makes it notable. Small aircraft owners are concerned about the waiver expiring, about makers getting out of the 100LL business, and about how the price goes up faster than that of other fuels. E98 is not a suitable alternative for higher-compression engines because of knocking problems, and unsuitable for many older planes because they cannot use ethanol fuels.
2. Article does not violate WP:Crystal -- article cites a newspaper article stating that, not only is there an airport meeting, but that Swift Enterprise's pilot plant proposal is on the agenda -- almost certain. Article does not "speculate on what might become well known in the future."
3. See above
4. What is the size of a typical pilot plant?
5. As for WP:NOR and WP:NFT, there is no evidence that the editors of the article are presenting original research or "ideas which they or their friends have come up with, such as a new ball game invented in the park, a new word or phrase invented in the playground, a new language, or a new drinking game invented at a particularly memorable party." Other reliable sources HAVE written about this new invention. The editors of the article feel this is notable, and are documenting the information available from these sources.

Finally, as for the potential that interest in this topic may well prove to be ephemeral -- should Pet Rock be deleted, or should it be improved? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Which GA news organizations? What is your citation for your quote?

2 That misses my point. The speculative event is whether the pilot plant will be built, not whether there are meetings to talk about it. There are meeting to talk about corporate projects and building projects every day across the country. A large number of such projects never get off the ground. The meetings are verified and almost certain. However, they do not lend any kind of certainty to the plant being built. The pilot plant is still future speculation until a building permit is issued officially. When that happens, we have near certainty (even though the second requisite part, notability, is still an open question). Hence future speculation.

3 see above

4 There is no "typical" size for a pilot plant, but the whole purpose of a pilot plant is one that is large enough to grant useful experience to the company in a production-scale environment. Looking at the patent for swiftfuel, there are at least 6 different chemical constituents in their fuel blend for 100LL. If we look at the articles for each of those compounds/compound families, we can see that each one has a separate method of synthesis. Depending on what level of integration this plant will have that is a lot of piping, storage and control tanks, and will be quite a feat of chemical engineering to complete. Piping, heaters, storage tanks, etc, require a lot of space, not to mention fermenters and distillers, separators, blending units, etc. I would guess that a plant of this type would expect to be at least 25000 - 100000 square feet minimum, just based on the synthesis information in wikipedia for the component parts of their 100LL fuel alone.

5 The editors are presenting an idea (myself included, since I am a significant contributor to the article) that someone came up with one day. It has not been published in an academic journal of any reputation, much less a reliable one. It has not been recognized as a unique invention by any government. It has not been endorsed by a single media organization as a proven success. It has received mention on a slow news day of some new thing that might have potential, or might not. I both contribute to the article because all articles should be encyclopedic and complete, while at the same time I consider this to be non-notable. I stand as a counterexample to your statement.

6 your comparison with the pet rock is inapt. The idea of a pet rock has become one cited in numerous sources, and has become something of a joke for 'get rich quick' schemes that don't really contribute to society. The differences between swiftfuel and pet rocks are striking. First and foremost, pet rocks were successful, and they made their inventor rich. Note the past tense. Second, pet rocks have enough information about them to move beyond permastub status. Things such as imitators, economic trends and impact, notable owners, and popular culture references could all be used to expand the article. The current swiftfuel article, however, does not have the possibility of being significantly expanded or improved because the information necessary to do that does not exist. See WP:SCRABBLE for why the potential impact argument for swiftfuel is invalid. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Please see cited references in Swiftfuel. Aeromarkt is an online GA news magazine. Airport Business covers the GA beat. AOPA online, the magazine of the AOPA, offers a position piece on avgas replacements.

2-6 Your discussion of how Swiftfuel is different from pet rock has helped me to understand your point of view on the notability of the topic. If I may paraphrase -- the pet rock may have been a flash in the pan, but Swiftfuel has never even flashed. You have a point.

I agree that the Swiftfuel article cannot currently be expanded much since there is currently not much more information available. The article, as a standalone, might be premature, and the information might be best placed somewhere else. I do think that, when people come looking for information on Swiftfuel (what it is, whether it is available, who cares about Swiftfuel and why), they should be able to find this information at Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE says preserve this information. The information is notable.

I don't support deleting this article. I might support merging sections of Swiftfuel into appropriate existing or new articles. The "100LL problem" story of environmental concerns, unleaded alternatives, improper operating temperatures, excessive valve wear, fuel system corrosion, aviation "incidents" and the development of various avgas alternatives is itself Wikipedia-worthy. If the Swiftfuel information gets moved out into other appropriate articles, the article would then be empty. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you that we don't need to remove all of the information on swiftfuel from wikipedia, but we agree on the fundamental point that there really isn't enough information to make a good article. Your paraphrase is right on the mark. I would have no particular objection to mentioning swiftfuel being mentioned in any of several articles or lists (including 100LL, or lists of developmental biofuels, etc). HatlessAtless (talk) 17:50, 1 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.