Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Methanol Synthesis

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Methanol Synthesis

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

Reason The article has been dangling for 7 years with a "please improve references". While the reaction discussed is real it is economically impractical. Only two wikipedia pages link here (although 6 user pages do), and the group/category/stub tags show it to be of low importance.

Most importantly, all the content is covered elsewhere, so an aggregation of low-importance data into its own page seems counterproductive.

Riventree (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In short: The useful content is elsewhere on Wikipedia and is referenced there, but not here. In detail: The only reference within the article is to the characteristics of a methanol engine in comparison to a diesel, which is in no way specific to this method of synthesis. Many of the statements within the article are non-neutral, naive expressions of enthusiasm. All are unreferenced. This particular reaction is only one of several approaches to bio-methanol. As stated by nom., it is not generally considered to be the most viable; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the article's existence. What is fatal to the present article is that all the useful content of this article applies to methanol generally, and is in that article already. There is also a unaddressed problem with this article: 1) there are "green field" synthetic plants, which do not use this particular exact reaction, and 2) Green Freedom, a trademark name, seems to have some connection to this reaction. The original editor chose not to respond to a request for clarification in 2008 on this problematic aspect. According to IRENA, [1], "the term 'bio-methanol' refers to both methanol produced from renewable resources and 'renewable methanol' produced from CO2". For all of these reasons, it isn't feasible to merge this content or rename this particular content "Bio-methanol". One option would be to rewrite the article from scratch, using a broader range of sources, such as the above IRENA ref, [2], [3] and [4] etc. This would be a completely new article, and the present edit history would have no relevancy to the new effort. However, there are already 2 articles that overlap in this concept space, methanol fuel and methanol economy. So, if appropriate in the future, "bio-methanol" would probably be better "growing out of" one of these, if hypothetically expanded content there became worthy of a new article. For all these reasons, the best course of action is deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to methanol fuel, although a new article at biomethanol (currently a redirect) would probably be welcome also. Per FeatherPluma. shoy (reactions) 14:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this is worth merging. The salient content is already in methanol and methanol economy, respectively; this partial excerpt is superfluous.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2016 (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.