Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbital 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital engine

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

This article cites two sources: a patent, and a segment in a radio programme on the wider context of purported fuel-saving devices which turned out to be duds. Most of the content - all but a single statement as far as I can tell - is sourced to the patent, a clear example of WP:OR. The article either needs the addition of substantial reliable independent sources, or it needs to be nuked. Right now it does not comply with policy. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources cited on the article for Ralph Sarich that refer to this idea. Did you do WP:BEFORE checks for sources? Even if it turned out to be a dud, it still might be notable, like Piltdown Man. 109.79.174.71 (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Googling '"orbital engine" Sarich' finds many refs, including that it's in the Powerhouse museum, as well as news articles from all major Australian newspapers - and that's just recent (last 10 years or so) news; 1970s and 1980s Australian news isn't covered at all well online. The-Pope (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many references available, as noted by The Pope and the IP user above. The article is certainly lacking attention when compared to the article about its inventor, but it is not in such a poor state that it requires being wiped clean. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The basic issue appears to be that the engine does not work. Sometimes we need coverage of things that do not work, and this is one of those cases. Documenting flawed inventions is sometimes encyclopedic. It has been adequately documented in secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 21 September 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.