Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluminum internal combustion engine

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. Questions like whether to cover any specific engine in detail, or whether to merge into a more generic article, can continue to be hashed out on the talk pages. My personal suggestion is to work on this for a while, and come back to AfD for another look at some point in the future, per WP:RENOM, if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminum internal combustion engine[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I opened a discussion on RSN to see if the provided sources for this article were sufficiently reliable to contribute toward notability. While the discussion has not been closed, there is an overwhelming consensus that more reliable sources, preferably from actual engineering publications as opposed to general-interest news outlets. As such, I think it's appropriate to nominate this article for deletion. I searched online for additional sources prior to opening the RSN discussion, and while I did find some sources that are not cited by the article, they were in publications with similar issues vis-a-vis reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging people involved in the RSN discussion: Newslinger, Jan olieslagers, Steelpillow, Andy Dingley, TGCP _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been re-purposed to widen its scope since the original discussion was started and now covers all such high-aluminum content engines. While the sources inherited from the original narrow topic are clearly dubious in varying degrees, the current topic is equally obviously notable once a knowledgeable editor gets their teeth into it and provides some decent sources. For example aluminum crank cases, blocks and cylinder heads are common enough, while the BSA A10 was one that had aluminum con-rods[1] and at least one Skoda had an aluminum crankshaft[2]. Knowing that there is such material out there, for now that is enough to keep it as a stub. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have no confidence that WP can produce an article on this topic. Whichever that topic is, either this nameless Russian engine, or aluminium engines in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment since I opened this AfD on the basis of another conversation, let me clarify my position on deletion: I think that an article specifically about the Russian engine mentioned in the sources does not meet notability guidelines. I feel like I don't have enough knowledge about internal combustion engines to effectively assess whether coverage of all-aluminum or mostly-aluminum engines should be combined with other articles about internal combustion engines, although I don't think the sources currently provided by Steelpillow are enough to justify having a separate article. Thus, my stance at this point would be weak delete _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing we could do here would be an article on mostly aluminium engines. Those are extremely common: such an article might be justified, but it's emphatically not this article. Only if the crankshaft (which is almost never of aluminium) or possible the conrods (which are very rarely of aluminium) should it be covered here.

The sources here are all pretty obviously a recycling of the same press release. They are not enough to reach WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept then it should be moved to "Aluminium internal combustion engine" per the MoS, as it deals mostly with chemistry and not the element's relevance in the United States. In any event I think it should be merged to Internal combustion engine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internal combustion engine under WP:OVERLAP. The 90% aluminum engine is not sufficiently distinct from other internal combustion engines made from different proportions of materials. I don't think this particular engine would be due a mention in the Internal combustion engine article, although a list entry might be due in the History of the internal combustion engine article if more independent sources emerge. The RSN discussion identified weaknesses in the Russian news sources, in that some of the articles appear to be dependent on press releases and that Russian news media is considered less reliable for controversial topics (such as the "first engine" claim).
Regarding the 1903 Wright engine, the cited Smithsonian page states: "The Wright engine, with its aluminum crankcase, marked the first time this breakthrough material was used in aircraft construction. Lightweight aluminum became essential in aircraft design development and remains a primary construction material for all types of aircraft." If aluminum became a mainstay in aircraft engines after it was used in the engine that powered the first flight, then aluminum engines should be covered in the Aircraft engine article instead of a separate article. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this time. I have over 40 years experience as an automotive technician. I have owned shops, been multiple ASE certified, an on-board computer tech and trainer, and built and owned many high performance vehicles including race cars. I bought a 1976 Vega with a Twin-Cam Cosworth aluminum engine and began to beef it up and race it. The engine is touted as being "all aluminum" but it in fact had a steel crank. I have built engines using aluminum competition blocks that include the LT engines, the Bill Mitchell and Dart small block Ford aluminum engines, and even the Wankle engine. I notice that the Internal combustion engine article is rather large, dabbles in aluminum engines, but with a direction towards all aluminum internal combustion engines instead of the Russian direction, I think this can be a viable article. Otr500 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve: The article needs more improvements, but the topic is interesting.Charmk (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do interesting, we do notable. I agree it's interesting. But is that a hypothetical discussion of why it's hard? A review of when it was failed and rejected? Or, just maybe, this one new engine? And does that (which is questioned here) have adequate sourcing for WP:V? Because otherwise we're falling foul of WP:OR, and that's not our purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2019 (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.