Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crower six stroke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per consensus PeaceNT 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crower six stroke[edit]
- Crower six stroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
There are under 50 ghits for "crower cycle" and only one non-trivial source I can find, but we have two articles, this and six stroke engine. There is onyl one concept, and it's not an especially notable one. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I hate to disagree, but I got 25,300 results on Google and it looks like there's enough context and content that it's good enough for Wikipedia. Madman bum and angel 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a external reference to Crower from Combined cycle demonstrating that Crower is of academic if not practical interest. Hence also a potential internal reference 87.122.229.110 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to six stroke engine. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-13 08:12Z
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i did a little research and the patent seems to bolster notability. the_undertow talk 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The patent helps. Ezratrumpet 00:55, 15 April 2007 (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.