Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayley Gap

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 per unanimous vote among experienced/established users. --JForget 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayley Gap[edit]

Disputed prod; no reliable sources, WP:FRINGE, apparently original research Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I will reamain silent on this matter. my goal is to provid usfull information wich will help others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaga99 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm leaning more towards WP:NFT. 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which are about this; 0 gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay A transistor is a good idea. I work with high power all the time. (im an electrition) And i have found that normal transistors are not very good swichers. Although tuning a spark transistor would be a bit hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega volt2 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Mega volt2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per all above. Original research of something made up one day. Reso lute 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources establish neither notability or factuality. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay Usfull information. Anyone making a teslacoil could use this. The faster it swiches the beter it will be for a tesla coil. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willy56.5 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Willy56.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Stay I to agrea with Willy. I try many gaps and the Bayley gap would make a great spark gap, and i would be happy to make and use one myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza pants (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Pizza pants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Mega volt2 (talk • contribs), Willy56.5 (talk • contribs), and Pizza pants (talk • contribs) have all only made contributions to this page, and have all !voted "Stay"(is that like "Keep"?). ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V, as no one at all (other than User:Omaga99) appears to have written about this. Deor (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3 ghits, none for g-news. Fails at WP:N & WP:RS. All the "keep" er "Stay" comments seem ...umm... read them yourself. Faradayplank (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source is not there. But the Bayley gap is being published in you-tube for anyone making a tesla coil. In a few years other people will be using and refering to Bayley. If the Bayley gap was not anywhere else i would vote to destroy. Here is the you-tube video i found.[1]— Mr.ZAPY! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Youtube is not a reliable source - anyone can post anything there. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: There is no way an invention in 2008 will have passed peer review, let alone the WP:V threshold, barring it being done by a Nobel laureate. Someone should also explain to the article creator about WP:SOCK. Ravenswing 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reliable, independent source. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the supporting editors Mega volt2 (talk · contribs), Willy56.5 (talk · contribs), Pizza pants (talk · contribs) and Mr.ZAPY! (talk · contribs) all edited for the first time on this AfD. Such other edits as they have made consist only of adding the occasional dot. Mr.ZAPY! also removed an earlier note by Wakanda's Black Panther!, which I have restored, pointing out that the first three were SPAs. I have filed a suspected sockpuppet report here. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is a hoax and passes the 'duck' test with flying colours ('This page is protected by Omaga. Vandals will be reported and the page will be reloaded with original context.'). It is obviously nothing more than pseudo-science. David873 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a hoax as such; rather the contributor's design of triggerable spark gap with a fan for cooling and arc extinction. Fails WP:N and WP:OR, and the sockpuppetry is a little annoying. — BillC ^talk 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mmm, I'd be much more comfortable with the notion of article creator = skilled inventor if the article wasn't semi-literate. Turns of phrase like "For the Head is were the spark will occur ... The heat sink can be purchased or made with a price of sheet melt" put hoaxes in mind.

Delete I'm not even sure this "Baylay Gap" exists. Even if it does, it obviously hasn't achieved substantial independent coverage to pass WP:N. To the author: Simply existing isn't a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not even for a scientific discovery or electronics product. And while, sure, this "Bayley Gap" might be known around the world in a few years, to include it in Wikipedia now would be in violation of WP:Crystal ball. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search on Google for 'Bayley Gap' reveals nothing relevant and Google Scholar returns no results. Furthermore, some of the terms used in the article do not seem to exist. Judging by the external links and his user page, the person who came up with the ideas for the article in the first place may even be guilty of fraud. David873 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also dubious it even exists. Even if it does, it isn't notable. Alberon (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced (well, YouTube-sourced) nonsense/hoax, support votes are all from SPA/socks. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Smells of a hoax.PB666 ^yap 20:16, 9 July 2008 (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.