Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDiesel

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GDiesel

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

Previously deleted, (Not sure what reason was given) and recently recreated. (Not sure of that either). Article is several months old now and still missing any evidence of notability. Five references are listed but three are industry publications, one is vague, and one is a news article about approval by state environmental regulators in one US state.

I can't check on the history of it as it is a recreation, but I think the article has had a speedy declined and a prod removed. Still no evidence of notability has been added after all this time. Dmol (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. This article is about a mixture of diesel fuel with natural gas being sold as fuel. Mentions in an "In Brief" section of a newspaper, trade periodical announcements that the product is for sale, and regulatory approvals for sale do not suggest that this invention is a product with historical, technical, or cultural significance. Note also that the article has been deleted several times before, for a variety of reasons: copyright infringement, expired PROD (then restored), and "multiple reasons". Should be salted as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere. Seems like a major technological innovation. Sufficient news coverage. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please provide cites for the Sufficient news coverage you mention. They are not in the article. Both myself and another editor have dismissed the article's cites as insufficient.--Dmol (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – If this really works, it could be an alternative to liquefied natural gas in exploiting stranded gas reserves. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Advanced Refining Concepts and hold to strict application of WP:CORP and WP:ADVERT standards. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GDiesel is a product of technical significance, and the process has been patented and the fuel is being sold as an "alternative fuel" in Nevada, as authorized by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. A letter as of August 16 designates GDiesel as an alternative fuel. We are working on linking that letter to the Wiki page. Also, media coverage has been dedicated to the product, more importantly an AP story that was carried nationally, and picked up in several prominent papers including the Washington Post, etc. Other articles are being added to the list of references. There may be some technical hurdles to overcome such as listing citations properly, so there is a learning curve. George2140 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about any technical hurdles to listing citations - just tell us the publications' names, dates, headlines and page numbers here, along with the urls if the articles are available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 25 September 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 24 September 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times reference in the article is substantial coverage from a 3rd party independent published RS, and sufficient for notability, even though the earlier AP article is unavailable. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 1 October 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.