Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel J. Leivick (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 4 May 2007 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable invention, no reliable, secondary source. Note image legend The only function model, made by the inventor himself. May be a case of self-promotion. --Pjacobi 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Interesting idea, but no evidence it's ever been implemented outside the inventor's garage. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My favorite text: This engine from the sixties ... is widely unknown, because it has been suppressed by the SSD (STASI) and KGB. I'd cleaned it up a bit and asked the author/inventor for some assertion of notability but I doubt that any is possible. -Will Beback · · 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author's talk page makes it clear that his inventions have not been as successful as he hoped (for whatever reason). There are some Ghits but no real evidence of notability. andy 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the second thought You are all right – but formally only. Under normal circumstances - without the suppression by the communists - the Wolfhart engine would be on the market (ask an expert) and common knowledge. Due to the Cold War we have no normal circumstances – and unusual circumstances demand unusual actions. Ergo – this article should stay in the same way as other articles about rotary engines where also only one model exist – and on the end – if the article stays a while – it becomes “notability”.

Even the German Wikipedia tolerate this article Kugelkolbenmotor and has a lot of hits. There is great interest on this invention – at least in Germany. It would be seen as a shame if the USA are unable to tolerate such article and a loss of important technical knowledge. At last the US-Wikipedia would show courage not to follow the orders of the KGB. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry - we shouldn't be keeping a non-notable article just in case it later becomes notable. It's not notable right now because there are very few independent third party references to it. Maybe that will change, maybe not. andy 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conflict of interest issues are a problem as well as notability. Wikipedia is not a way to promote inventions. Just as a quick note my connections with the KGB are not particularly strong. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]