Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milkweed Latex Gasoline

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkweed Latex Gasoline[edit]

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

Original request for deletion was placed on the WP:Energy talk page saying "Found this page Milkweed Latex Gasoline while on 'new page patrol'. Very poorly written, with little clear info and a sketchy reference. Before I spend any more time trying to improve it, could I get some input on how to proceed? There is a good page on milkweed Asclepias that only says that no commericial use for milkweed as a fuel as of yet. Don't want to delete something that might actually need a page, and don't have the knowledge to make the decision. I can work on it, if people think it's worth it. Please let me know. thnx. Nihola (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Another editor added ":Delete Given that the creator of the page hasn't given any reason at all why Milkweed Latex Gasoline is notable, nor any evidence that it actually exists, why should the page exist at all? Ernestfax^Talk 07:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC))"[reply]

I personally also think that in its current stage the deletion and, if necessary, expansion of Asclepias articles would be the best solution. Beagel (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is atrociously written, but the contents are essentially correct. Euphorbia is a know biofuel source, and is listed in numerous primary and secondary sources detailing it's specific use as a potential biofuel for the future. The article really needs expanded and linked into renewable energy, biofuel articles. scope_creep (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that Euphorbia could be used as biofuel source and definitely this should be added into the relevant article. However, there is no such thing as 'Milkweed Latex Gasoline'. There is no even search results for this name except Wikipedia and its derivatives. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, or even of existence, of the topic. If Euphorbia is a known biofuel source that information could be added there, or at Asclepias (it's not clear which is being referred to). No need to merge - this is so badly written that it's difficult to see anything here that's of use.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge to Euphorbia as there's debate about this terminology and sucject can be covered in the main article. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G1, patent nonsense. Calvin, a 20th century biochemist who discovered the Calvin cycle isn't the discover of Euphorbia (a genus first described by Linnaeus). Milkweeds aren't in the genus Euphorbia or in the Euphorbiaceae at all. It's a string of random nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) No longer gibberish - Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poorly titled and written but has some basis in fact.[1]. Melburnian (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read a few articles, moved it to an appropriate page name, removed all of the content, wrote a brief paragraph. It's now an article. It wasn't. If someone had asked the plant project earlier it might have saved 14 days of air space for this nonsense and its discussion. Done. {{subst:4tilde}} (<- This was User:JaRoad)

~~delete~~ - Who is ever going to search or find this article or the one called Hydrocarbon plant? The info should be merged into latex and Euphorbiaceae as Guettarda recommends. Hardyplants (talk)

Changing to Keep I added a source that can be used to fill out a satisfactory start to the article; it covers problems, history and future development issues that need to be addressed. Hardyplants (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move: It seems the standard term is "Hydrocarbon-producing plant" (from Melburnian's reference above, and the reference in the article). The concept seems distinct enough that it doesn't really belong just in Euphorbia, or Asclepias, or latex. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving any content to biofuels or alternative fuels? If the topic develops enough a break-out page can be made, but at the moment I can't see more than a paragraph or two plus maybe a list of potential species. There is also a

Energy crop article. Hardyplants (talk) 12:24, 23 ::August 2010 (UTC)

Puttting it in energy crop would require rewriting that article' entire introduction and reorienting in a way that the term "energy crop" is not usually ujse. I don't know a lot about it, though, and it seems hydrocarbon produucing plants deserve a mention. These plants are unique because of why they are used, namely exploitation of their terpenoid pathways, research engaged in heavily by Calciv, the king of plant pathways. Whatever the name, it can stand alone, but would require an off-topic section in most other articles, by the way, you can also get fuel by exploiting the terpenoid pathway's products to create gasoline. I'll write this article, but I won't add it to another, because it would require an entire other level of research to put it into context, whereas this is an interesting, discrete topic, coupled with a very famous scientist, one of the most famous inm the world. That's all I have to say, as I would have rather spent thhis time writing an article. JaRoad (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having stubs isn't a problem. A look down the biofuels page reveals plenty of specific methods with their own articles. In fact, this might have enough overlap with one of those, such as Green diesel or Vegetable oil refining, to be merged. (The whole area is a bit of a thicket: I think there's some duplication between trade names (e.g. Green crude) and generic terms.) If not, I think it should have its own article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Biogasoline is another potentially similar topic. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:37, 24 August 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.