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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged from this discussion. Note that the notion of a merge can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I consider this essentially an attack page, devoted to an attack upon the company and their product, but speedy was declined. I note that it is entirely based upon the SYNTHESIS of primary sources. It may appear straight description at first, but keep reading., DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems clearly notable to me, possibly it could be merged back to the related article. I tagged it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles on the talk page; as it's a highly technical article, relevant projects should be consulted before running straight to AfD. Wikipedia also has this feature that lets you delete things you think are undue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The way to deal with the decent material is to add it to the main article, rather than by keeping an unsatisfactory article. It was never a justified split. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I cannot see why the article has to have what is basically an entire treatise on steam engine thermal design, but in any case I cannot find any evidence of real notability. The most promising book reference turned out to be a paranoid work in the Orwellian vein—self-published, naturally. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The synthesis and attack elements seem to be mostly gone... I am a bit confused by the "merge back" comments as this does not seem to have been split from anywhere. What is the proposed "main article"?... I'm not sure about the engine, but the company does appear to be notable. Since the remaining content seems OK (albeit probably too detailed), creating an article for the company & merging would be a viable option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete for now because that News search shows a concerning more than half press releases in a 15-page range with reliable and notable sources zig zagging in and out of pages. Books also found a few things. The information is good but having most of the sources press releases is outstanding. I'm uncertain but I think the company could be notable later with more actual news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of press release to quality coverage does not matter, only the amount of quality coverage. If say 1/3 of the stories are not press releases, that leaves 5 pages of sources, more than enough to establish notability (for the company). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Re the original proposal, I don't find any attack elements and we haven't been told which article it would be merged back into. WP:SYNTH is specific to generating unjustifiable conclusions from sources; the accusation has been made here, but I don't see the evidence for it. Spicemix (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I am the original author of the article. DGG - you are right, I read up on it and I did put in synthesis. It looks like that's gone now. If I might make a plea starting with the bigger picture, it goes like this: Waste heat and waste heat recovery unit is a bigger area than is now covered in Wikipedia and is growing in importance. I could dig out a number of examples (and hope to write them up over time), but, for instance, there is a lot of research worldwide on using the waste heat from automobiles and commercial vehicles (EU project), application to combined heat and power systems, especially at the micro scale, and things like direct solar heat conversion to work such as this Solar Steam Irrigation Pump. That last one is illustrative in showing that steam engines are competitive against technologies such as photovoltaics. There is a lot of developed knowledge for this technology, but it is scattered. I think there is an opportunity to collect the scattered knowledge. Then the question is, where to start? Googling waste heat engine gets 3,580,000 results while Cyclone waste heat engine gets 99,200 results. Obviously I think this is an important technology, and, frankly, I feel this particular company has been "hurting the cause", hence the criticisms and synthesis. Please forgive this newbie mistake. I see that material has all been taken out, and I won't be putting it back in. So, could I make a request that the reasons for deletion be updated and summarized? The article was not split from another article. I think all the synthesis has been removed. It's technical and there is more information than necessary, certainly, but a big part of the technical detail are the features that contrast this engine from others. Thank you for your indulgence. BuddyWhazhizname (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. As stated above, I feel the content would be better off trimmed and used as part of an article on the company. However, the content should be retained in some fashion regardless and the original rationale for deletion offered no longer applies. Thus, I say keep, with the strong possibility of a later merger. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the sort of article that looks just ... off to me. Excessive technical detail, the sources are an unappealing mixture of press releases, Youtube videos and primary sources... This is either an attempt at promoting, or discrediting, something that doesn't just look very notable. Maybe rewrite by somebody unrelated to the topic in amore condensed and comprehensible form?  Sandstein  12:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly a notable topic and there is plenty there that it would be preferred to clean it up and salvage it than to just outright delete it. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 17:15, 13 May 2015 (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.