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 merge to Avgas. Article is already merged so let's close it that way (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article does not list any reason why the subject is notable. Searching google news archives for "swiftfuel" with the quotes gives nothing that passes wp:N (I can't get a well formed link here, so: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="SwiftFuel"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en ) Previous AFDs ended in no consensus and promises of future development, but these sound to me like violations of wp:CRYSTAL and have not panned out. Some of the info could be mentioned at various articles, but there's not enough here for anything more than an advertisement. NJGW (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep merge, and redirect. The 100LL problem makes any potential replacement notable in the general aviation industry, and Cringely's article at pbs.org garnered some more general interest for it. Certainly, bloggers buzzed about it for some time afterwards. I invite User:NJGW to make a terrific merge of it, perhaps at Avgas. For now, the development of Swiftfuel is notable, if a bit newsy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 100LL. a little insignificant 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am finding sources with fairly substantial coverage: [1], [2], not public access but: [3]. This is an article but it looks suspiciously like a thinly-veiled press release: [4], another similar one: [5]. Yes, it's kind of marginal but I think there's enough to keep. Cazort (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the article would have except for "... is a possible future replacement for [x aviation fuel]". Besides that, I'm still waiting to see "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (ie "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail"). NJGW (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what to say in response to this. To me, these sources I gave address the subject directly and in detail. Taken off the pages:

"FAA's initial testing has revealed that Swift Fuel has a slightly higher octane than 100LL and has excellent resistance to detonation, something other fuels haven't been able to achieve without lead as an octane booster. The new fuel contains about 13 percent more heat value than avgas, but it's also about a pound heavier per gallon. It meets most of the requirements of the ASTM D 910 standard for avgas.", "Swift proposes to make its fuel from cellulosic biomass—switch grass and agricultural waste, for example—for a manufactured price of under $2 a gallon, according to a proposal it presented to an industry research council last year. Although Swift Fuel produces alcohol in its process, the fuel is not ethanol-based but rather combines acetone compounds derived from fermentation of biomass. Swift is continuing its testing through 2009 and seeking investors to fund further research and industrial rollout of the product", "Enter SwiftFuel, the Splenda of motor fuels because it is made from ethanol yet contains no ethanol. SwiftFuel is the invention of John and Mary Rusek from Swift Enterprises in Indiana. To your airplane SwiftFuel looks and tastes just like gasoline. It has an octane rating of 104 (higher than the 100 octane fuel it replaces) yet contains no lead or ethanol. SwiftFuel mixes with gasoline, can be stored in the same tanks as gasoline, and be shipped in the same pipelines as gasoline. It is made entirely from biomass, which means it has a net zero carbon footprint and does nothing to increase global warming. Its emission of other polluting byproducts of burning gasoline are significantly lower, too. SwiftFuel has more energy per gallon than gasoline so your airplane (or your car) will go 15-20 percent further on each gallon. ".

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. This seems like significant coverage to me. Are the sources reliable? I don't know...I'm willing to engage that question further...the PBS one looks biased, its written by a commentator with particular biases. Is it not a reliable source? Cazort (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there is only one source that comes close to discussing this issue in detail, and it's not really a source about swiftfuel. And as you say, this source could be seen as biased. Aside from these issues, the question is, is one source enough for "significant coverage". The other AFDs had lots of statements about forthcoming news, but that never materialized. This is an ad, and all the useful information could be moved to other places in the form of one or two sentences. NJGW (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cazort -- you've done some reading. Can you add it to the article? NJGW -- you want a merge. Please work on the merge, especially on presenting the information in a way that won't strike you as an advertisement. Why spend a lot of time WRITING ABOUT Swiftfuel and avgas when we could be simply WRITING those articles? --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might not be proper in the middle of an AFD. This is one method of consensus building. NJGW (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the suggestion is improper, but will take it to User_talk: to keep things WP:COOL here. --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I've found another good-looking source, Teledyne Continental Motors Flies on Swift Fuel's AvFuel, which as far as I can see the article doesn't currently use - this report covers the results of a test flight, rather than just the announcement of a planned test flight. It also uses an interesting phrase, "non-food renewable resource", which I suspect relates to criticisms that the the USA's fuel-from-biomass efforts have raised food prices - not usable as a source for the food-fuel issue, but suggests another aspect for editors to research. I could not load the FAA PDF ("the document contains no data", whihc usually indicates a temptrary server problem) but other commentaries indicate that FAA tests so far are only proof-of-concept, concentrating on energy density and risk of "detonation" (i.e. engine knock), and not nearly as comprehensive as tests for full approval - Swiftfuel should make this clear. While the use of what looks like a brand name as the article's title makes one wonder if it's advertising, on the whole the article is pretty neutral, e.g. it points out that at the current "laboratory" production scale the fuel is very expensive. I've had a quick look at avgas (to which 100LL redirects) and that article, while fairly long, has only brief summaries of each avgas type, including 100LL, for which SwiftFuel is a potential replacement. So I don't think a merge would work even with the present amount of content available for Swiftfuel, and it's almost certain that events in the near future will produce a rapid increase in content. --Philcha (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The merge into avgas is now nearly complete, and Swiftfuel will likely become a redirect soon, making this AfD moot. Please bring your refs and improvements to avgas#Swift fuel. Thanks! --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing preventing the redirect is the AfD statement warning us against blanking the page. Can I move that this AfD be closed so we can proced? As far as I can tell, every good part of the article was preserved in the merge, so the keep opinions (including my own) have been respected. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (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.