Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is the average size of an F1 fuel tank

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 : Snowball delete. I know it's somewhat irregular for the nominator to delete the article himself, but we have wasted enough time on it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the average size of an F1 fuel tank[edit]

Unencyclopedic speculation on the size of Formula One fuel tanks. Deleted several times by me, but it may not actually meet the speedy deletion criteria - so, for the sake of process, delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, if possible speedily. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G1 Patent Nonsense. It may LOOK like a semi-sensible calculation but it's actually complete drivel. It's the auto engineering equivalent of a million monkeys trying to write Shakespeare. Turn it into roadkill, please. MadScot (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What is the average size of an F1 fuel tank?" Answer-- about 80 liters. Want to know how he got the answer? Neither do we. Mandsford (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I believe this is a case for WP:SNOW. Wikipedia is a not a place where an article, whose single purpose is to present a question followed by an original answer, is allowed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. We have no speedy deletion criteria that applies to this article. It is pure own research, not verifiable, has no reliable sources, fails to assert any notability, and has no encyclopedic content. But still managed to escape all speedy deletion criteria. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it IS patent nonsense. If I 'calculate' the speed of an aircraft by combining random guesses and half understood engineering principles into a dubious 'calculation' its nonsense just as much as if I start making up words. This calculation isn't just wrong, its nonsensical by any reasonable engineering assessment. If someone wrote an article purporting to be a scientific analysis of why the earth is square, it'd be nonsense too. Not that it's going to help it survive anyway, but the faster this kind of junk vanishjes the better. Indeed, it's almost the definition of unsalvagably incoherent. If you removed the nonsense, you'd be left with the fact that Formula One cars have a fuel tank. that's surely CSD:G1? MadScot (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOR, to start. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFORUM, among others. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:37, 20 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.