Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris engine

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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iris engine

"The conceptual core of a new conceptual category of power generation devices." I originally tagged this as spam but that seems inappropriate since there is no product yet. An idea; has won a prize in a competition; is being patented; but is not (yet) particularly notable. Article probably written by one of the inventors. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather illegibly technical at the moment, but fairly well-sourced and notable. Red Zion^X 20:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- only GNews hits are typos; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- no GBooks, GScholar, or GNews hits at all. Winning the contest might be a sign of notability, but I wouldn't call this "well-sourced" --- references cited in the article are all self-published (the CNN one is a press release reprint; the Create the Future Contest entry is written by the inventor, as of course is his own website); the only one with any third-party review would be the patent, and just having a patent doesn't make an invention notable. cab (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After some thought, I'm suggesting we delete this article because there are no third-party sources on the topic. If not deleted, it should be restubbed to say merely that it's an engine design which won an award in a competition, and the rest of the content moved to the talk page. cab (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NASA award in itself is sufficient evidence of notability. The article offers further information about the engine design, something that those who saw the award list would legitimately expect from Wikipedia.--Wageless (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- People would legitimately expect that Wikipedia does something other than repeat what the inventor says about his own invention (WP:SELFPUB). Notability standards are a rough approximation for determining whether we can write a WP:V/WP:NPOV article on a topic; a topic might be considered "inherently notable" because of awards it has won, but that doesn't mean we should write an article which can't comply with basic policies. cab (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be phrased less promotionally and shortened--but there should definitely be an article on this idea. Doesn't matter if the design will or won't work: it got an award from Nasa and some press ergo people will be curious about it. I hesitate to offer parallels, but see the recent discussion on the proposed deletion of the "Perepiteia," a quasi perpetual motion motion machine.[1]--Wageless (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments and analysis of the IRIS engine on the discussion page of the main article (click on 'talk' above). I challenge the designers of this engine to respond.Jayjay51 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments; this really underscores the fact that their work hasn't had enough third-party review that Wikipedia can write a neutral article about it. Unfortunately, I don't know if the designers of the IRIS engine are watching their Wikipedia article ... cab (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened and removed the promotionalism to address cab's criticisms. Jayjay51's critical talkpage analysis, relating to sealing problems, is long and interesting, but this article isn't about the demerits of the design except insofar as the demerits have themselves been published somewhere.--Wageless (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No good third-party sources except a newspaper in the inventors' home city. I disagree with Wageless that winning a NASA award alone is sufficient for notability unless a guideline can be shown to support that assertion. If this invention takes off, then rewrite this. Until then, delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 23 February 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.