Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combustion vehicle

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion vehicle

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

DePRODDED by article creator, my concern remains that this is a clear case of WP:NEO. My Google search does not reveal real-world notability for this as a class of cars: the article creator is attempting to coin a classification that groups internal combustion and hybrid vehicles, however this is not a widely used term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real-world use of this term. — Timneu22 · talk 13:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposedly a name for the vehicles that we all drive that are powered by an internal combustion engine. Not only an unnecessary article, but there's no evidence that this made-up term has ever been used by anyone, nor likely to ever be used. Not only is it inaccurate, it would never be used by the auto industry, due to the mental image that it conveys of something bursting into flames (consider spontaneous combustion for instance). I think of the Ford Pinto when I think of a "combustion vehicle". Mandsford 15:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A coal burning steam locomotive or a wood burning Mark Twain style riverboat also was powered by external "combustion," and rockets are powered by "combustion," but the article creator apparently wants to stick to internal combustion. The article covers ground better covered by Internal combustion engine. It appears to be a nonnotable neologism. Edison (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO and of little value. If there was any useful content (and I think there is none), I would suggest merger with internal combustion engine, which is what the article seems to be about. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. First Light (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2010 (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.