Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood diesel

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wood diesel

[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)

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was newly developed in the lab and has not become an actual product since. Reywas92^Talk 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to purchase the article subject has nothing to do with it's notability. small jars tc 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more notable if it was actually produced in bulk Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more notable if RSes had more things to say about it. I guess production could be one of those things. I do agree there's content issue with the weight given to enviromental/economic benefits in this and the section in pyrolysis oil if they haven't come to fruition. It should focus on the science if the topic is experimental. small jars tc 14:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What links here is part of WP:BEFORE. If you had checked, you should have found two distinct reliable sources on wood diesel at pyrolysis oil, enough to pass WP:GNG. small jars tc 16:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not independent reporting, it's a press release by the University of Georgia touting their own researchers' publication. This is essentially the same thing repackaged, using the same quote <"It's going to take a while before this fuel is widely available," Adams said. "We've just started on developing a new technology that has a lot of promise."> Without any further development of additional research publications and independent discussion, I do not see notability, and Wikipedia is not the place for stand-alone articles for any new technology. I maintain my delete vote and would also suggest removing it from Pyrolysis oil unless this moved beyond this lab. Reywas92^Talk 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points and I should have been less arrogant. It still seems to meet GNG from sources such as [1] and [2], though these seem to be less practical forms of diesel-compatible biofuels based on wood than the one the article is currently focussed on. small jars tc 22:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this [3], I'm not sure if it's the same product though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could redirect to biomass, which I think is a similar product, but I'm not an expert in biofuels. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or I could merge with Biodiesel if people don’t wish to delete it Chidgk1 (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about that merge is that "wood (bio)diesel" seems to refer to various biofuels that can be combined with or used as a replacement for (bio)diesels, rather than to biodiesel in the proper sense of the word. small jars tc 10:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources listed 128.6.36.94 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to biofuel or biodiesel. This is clearly a thing that exists and has been reported on in reliable sources ([4], [5]). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether deletion or merging is the better solution (and if it is Merge, to which specific article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to be important, there is one source only, but the article can be improved. Adler3 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ASSERTN. You can't make vague statements about notability without backing them up. If you can find sources that do, I am willing to change my vote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://biomassmagazine.com/articles/19846/alleo-energy-produces-renewable-diesel-from-wood-waste

https://www.dw.com/en/powering-cars-with-diesel-made-from-wood/a-16148231

These sources seems to talk about Wood diesel. There might be overlaps with another article Adler3 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adler3 is now blocked, but both the sources they gave are good finds which are not derivative of the press release that !voters brought up earlier in the discussion. We still have the problem that wood (bio)diesel is a loosely defined concept, and this article could benefit from expert attention. small jars tc 16:28, 22 May 2023 (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.