Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of homopolar generator patents

: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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[List of homopolar generator patents]]=

:{{la|List of homopolar generator patents}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|List of homopolar generator patents}})

Contested prod, no relevant rationale given. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no stated criteria for belonging to this list other than apparently using the words "homopolar" and "generator" in the patent text. There's no significance given for inclusion of any entry, (many patents never get practiced), no explanation of the importance of any particular patent, and no encyclopediac value in retaining this product of an automated database search. The article to talk about the development of homopolar generators exists, it's called Homopolar generator. Wtshymanski (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. It seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that all it really does is list people who have patented something. As Wtshymanski said, there's nothing that shows why these people are listed or even why this is particularly notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
  • Keep This is hardly a random list of "people" who have patented "something". The something in question here is a homopolar generator, a pretty obscure piece of electrical engineering. It's one form of electrical generator, a hugely common device, yet of a form that's today almost unknown. Now there's a peculiarity that warrants explanation. Mentions of this device are not implicitly notable, but they're certainly unusual and worth a further look. Nor are these anonymous inventors quite so anonymous: half-a-dozen of them are already notable engineers with linked WP articles.

: Of course this article is a bare list and pretty unintelligible as it stands. It needs commentary added, and some sense of historical context. If only there was an electrical engineer available with time on his hands to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::Comment by nominator Homopolar generator is a worthwhile and notable topic and would be the logical place to explain the development and limitations of homopolar generators. A list of patents doesn't explain that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Very encyclopedic topic. Some of the inventors have blue links to their own articles. Anyone curious about how many patents are associated with this, and who invented them, would benefit from this. Listing the years each patent was issued, would be useful as well. Dream Focus 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::Comment by nominator Again, the topic is notable, but a list of patents is not the way to explain the topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. There is not "inherent notability" for random homopolar generators. A patent is not evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:::What nerve for editor Edison to comment on electrical patents. Blatant COI! EEng (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete: Patently unencylopedic. EEng (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - How so? Northamerica1000(talk) 10:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - Which of the eight points in WP:NOTDIRECTORY is being referred to here? Northamerica1000(talk) 10:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:**Comment by nominator - how about points 1,4, 7 and possibly 8 ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

: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.