Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICE fuel conversion

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. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICE fuel conversion[edit]

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

This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams. The subject matter the article deals with already presented on alternative fuel and oxyhydrogen Mion (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC). Update, related article Alternative ICE fuel generator. Mion (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the spam links / refs from this page. The remaining content is redundant with articles mentioned above, but is less inclusive (or I would suggest merging). This topic should send Wikipedians directly to Alternative fuel page.--E8 (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mion's argument is compelling.--OMCV (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear effort at whitewashing the reputation a highly dubious industry. SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I made the article, I never intented to legitimize water-fueled car scams. I didn't even refer to these at all, rather I refered to simple oxyhydrogen and liquid nitrogen internal combustion conversions, ... (meaning simply that oxyhydrogen is burnt in the conventional IC engine rather than gasoline, ...) I only wished to improve coverage on oxyhydrogen, hydrogen and liquid nitrogen for use as a fuel (in transport, ...). As you noted out before, you removed some of the "spam links/refs", which contained in effect some video's, ... on how a conversion to these alternative fuels is done. Indeed little then remains of what I actually wished to describe in the article (especially as I have gotten little cooperation from other editors in the matter). If however the entire article is removed, there will be no more article on which the built, and the knowledge on this (very important) green technology will be partly lost at Wikipedia. For example at Alternative_fuel_vehicle, and Automotive the use of oxyhydrogen isn't even mentioned.

Thus, rather than deleting it, I would try to keep it and improve it (especially as there are already articles on electric vehicle conversions, ...). If no consensus on this can be reached however, instead merge the article info to Alternative_fuel_vehicle, and Automotive KVDP (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote "I never intented to legitimize water-fueled car scams. I didn't even refer to these at all..." now to quote the page "* unverified [[Water-fueled car|conversions with water]]". Burning oxyhydrogen in cars is already dealt with on oxyhydrogen and water-fueled car. Anything not discussed there should be discussed on Alternative fuel vehicle rather than producing a WP:POV fork. In the end there is little to merge since the text is either spam or ill informed.--OMCV (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternative fuel or Alternative fuel vehicle is the correct place for any of the content which is verifiable. Petecarney (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take issue with the reason given ("This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams") - I see nothing in KVDP's contributions here to justify this, and this kind of attack on the motives of another editor should be avoided. Please stick to the merits or lack of merit of the article. (As it happens, KVDP is a diligent and serious contributor here and at Appropedia, even if I disagree with him sometimes. He is no spammer - a better assumption is that his judgment of certain links may differ from yours or mine.) However, this article title may be a neologism, and Petecarney's suggestion is one option; another option is to keep and maybe rename the page, if no other page exists listing & describing various fuel conversions - there is a place for lists & summaries on Wikipedia. I'm not voting as I'm short of time to get better informed - but as I often say, anything on this topic that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia is often suitable for Appropedia. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the articles listed in the intro include instructions for or, as far as I can tell, even mention the idea of engine conversion. I recently read a very interesting article in "Mechanical Engineering" on this same topic. This industry does have a lot of kooks, but alternative fuels (biodiesel, ethanol) are a very real and important part of our future. Let the article sort between the crap and the facts, but this article should stay. Although, I would change the name.TheThomas (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Alternative fuel would be a good name.--OMCV (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue about Brown's gas, see the original setup of this page [[1]] is handled at the oxyhydrogen page and more the talkpage of it, Wikipedia has a linking policy against product linking "Kits can be found trough sites as Hydrogencarconversion[[2]" As we see later on it quickly attracts the term "hydrogen booster" a well known term in the sales of these kits. The provided links to the oxyhydrogen fuel generator images by KVDP [[3]] and [[4]] are only here educational purposes. In itself, this is not ment as a personal attack, it is following Wikipedia:Spam, Talk:Oxyhydrogen and Hydrogen fuel enhancement, and i hope this project attracts more creative, diligent and serious contributors like KVDP. Mion (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2009 (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.