Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital phase converter


 * 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 keep for now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital phase converter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product, proprietary to Phase Technologies, LLC, who is the only manufacturer of digital phase converters according to the author. I tried finding a reference but the author wrote that the only decent one I found was a sham site. See the talk page. Failed Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominated seven hours after article creation? Give editors time to actually read the tags you add before tossing this to AfD. Torc2 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The tag has been removed twice by the article's author.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then hit the user with a vandalism tag. I just don't see that as cause to AfD the article so quickly. This should be brought to the attention of the science gurus so they can say whether it's marketing BS or not - I don't know if it is; vote is strictly procedural. Torc2 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Torc2 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - I'm still voting keep on this for mainly procedural purposes, but I would like to see it renominated in a few weeks if no third party sources are found. Torc2 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a valid topic. The article might be redirected to Three-phase electric power or Phase converters but that's a keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Author Soothsayer2. The information provided is factual and all proprietary references and company references have been removed.  Forgive me for the tag removal as I am new at this.  Rather than put additional information and references here, would it be better for me to use the discussion page?  Technology is quite new and there are discussions and further explanations available.  Thanks.  Soothsayer2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soothsayer2 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have some good independent sources, these would be useful here. But most work should go into the article.  You have 5 days before an admin might close the discussion and he ought to review the state of article at that time.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Colonel. Here is the exact copy from the US Patent site

United States Patent 6,297,971 Meiners October 2, 2001 Phase converter Abstract A phase converter that converts single phase AC electric power to balanced three phase AC power. Two input terminal connected to the output of a single phase AC power source connect directly to two output terminals of the converter. The phase converter has two serially connected storage capacitors with a common connection, a charging circuit for controlled charging the storage capacitors and an output circuit for controlled discharge of the storage capacitors to provide single phase AC power to a third output terminal. The charging circuit controls input to the storage capacitor to provide a sinusoidal input current and to step up the voltage to the storage capacitors. The output circuit provides output power to the third output terminal of a predetermined phase and amplitude, relative to the other two output terminals, to result in balanced three phase AC power at the three output terminals. The phase converter provides balanced three phase output for leading power factor, lagging power factor, and resistive loads. Inventors: Meiners; Larry G. (Rapid City, SD) Assignee: Phase Technologies, LLC (Rapid City, SD) Appl. No.: 09/638,230 Filed: August 14, 2000 Additionally, Dr. Meiners whitepage document has all significant information http://www.phaseperfect.com/files/phasewhitepaper.pdf Soothsayer2Soothsayer2 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you have to understand that none of that establishes the notability of the technology, and the whitepaper appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal. The links to forums you provided also are not sufficient to establish notability.  The guideline for what's required to meet notability is at WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *I would think the patent process lends itself toward a independent, reliable source.

"In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good."(Wikipedia) Soothsayer2 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not the same as notability. Why would the average person care about this? What impact has this had on the world? Just existing isn't a sufficient cause for an item to have a Wikipedia article.Torc2 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The need for 3-phase power conversion is evident in the development of rudimentary technology in this field 100 years ago, again 60 years ago and now modern improvements in recent years. 3-phase power is required across such diverse applications as Agriculture, Air Conditioning and Heating, Broadcast, Elevators, Environmental, Laundry, Medical, Metalworking, Pumping and Irrigation, Woodworking, etc…  3-phase utility power simply is not available in many locations it is needed and past solutions have been problematic.  When your ability to make a living is dependent on the ability to operate equipment that has become more and more sophisticated and requires 3-phase power that is not available to you or perhaps the ability to live in an area that needs to pump water but cannot without a reliable converter to efficiently operate a submersible pump or even remote area broadcasting, medical applications, etc...then I guess you may care and be impacted.  This particular development is significant for the changing and increasing power needs of the modern world.  Thanks.  Soothsayer2 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now all you have to do is find a reliable published source to cite that says that specifically about digital phase converters and add it to the article. Torc2 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Three-phase electric power or Phase converters. Merge any extra information from here to the target article. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this is obviously a notable device. John254 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it notable? Torc2 (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the conventional device used to convert single-phase power to three-phase power is a rotary phase converter, which, of course, has moving parts, and is susceptible to mechanical failure. The digital phase converter appears to be the first fully solid-state device to generate balanced three-phase AC service from single-phase service. John254 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, the difference between a digital phase converter and a rotary phase converter is analogous to the difference between a solid state inverter and a rotary converter: in both cases, the solid state devices are light-years ahead of their electromechanical counterparts. John254 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where are the third-party reliable sources that say that? That's really what anybody is aksing for. What trade paper or engineering journal independent of the people who created the device have written something saying "hey, look at this!"? Torc2 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are the third-party reliable sources to support the notability of the rotary phase converter? There aren't any -- the few sources in the article are more along the lines of personal webpages than articles in technical journals. However, as anyone with experience in the electrical industry knows that the device is notable, the sourcing issues can be remedied at a later time -- see There is no deadline.  The same rationale applies to the retention of the digital phase converter article. Furthermore, we aren't dealing with completely unverifiable information here -- the patent for the device confirms its existence. John254 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A patent doesn't establish notability, and the presence of a different unsourced article does not justify keeping this one. The essay you pointed to really contradicts what you're saying: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Torc2 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline is written with respect to the creation of articles, but the principle applies to deletion as well. There's no reason to delete this article because, while the device has been shown to exist, and is believed to be notable, we don't have sources to establish its notability right now. John254 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Believed to be notable by whom? The nominator doesn't believe that, and right now, I don't either.  The notability guideline clearly requires more than faith in notability for an article to be kept, and an essay doesn't override that (especially when it says the same thing).  There is plenty of reason to delete this article because, simply put, it doesn't appear meet the requirements for keeping it. The requirements are pretty concrete and simple: find independent, reliable published sources that say it's notable. There's really not much leeway here. (Trust me, I've tried.) Torc2 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Because we run the terrible risk of having an article that... might not be important enough for inclusion?  Even though several established users who have participated in this discussion, including myself, believe that the device is notable, must we delete the article anyway to avoid the horrible risk of having an article on something that isn't really important? Consider the possible outcomes here: if the users supporting the retention of this article are wrong, then we have wasted perhaps an infinitesimal portion of our bandwidth on an unimportant article -- few people would read such unimportant material anyway.  Deletion of articles doesn't save server space, as the deleted revisions are merely hidden from public view, but retained on the servers indefinitely.  Now, if the users supporting the deletion of this article are wrong, then, at best, the deletion will need to be overturned at deletion review, once acceptable source material is found.  At worst, since there would be no publicly-viewable article, there will be less incentive to ever find acceptable sources to establish notability, and the article would remain deleted indefinitely.  I, for one, would prefer to take the chance that we have might have an article on something that isn't very important, unpleasant though that prospect may be. John254 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your beef over this requirement is not with me. If you'd look above, you'll notice I'm still voting keep on this until you (or whoever cares enough to keep this) is given a fair chance to find those sources. Torc2 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Much of the commentary cited relates to the exceptional sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons, which this article isn't. Furthermore, the material contained in the article is sourced -- see the patent, whose great technical detail verifies every word in the article. We are concerned with sourcing here, yes, but not to establish that the material contained in the article is true -- merely to establish that this device is sufficiently notable, or important, to merit inclusion.  Since several established editors believe that the device is notable, I would suggest retention of the article. John254 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I am not, as seems to be implied in one of the above essay citations, arguing that "Wikipedia should be about everything" -- most people, for instance, clearly have no pretensions to notability, and would have articles concerning them speedily deleted pursuant to CSD A7 -- but only because there is a consensus for this practice. Absent compelling policy considerations, we delete articles only when there is a consensus to do so, either because of the class to which the articles belong, or via individualized consideration at AFD. A mere alleged lack of notability is never the sort of "compelling policy consideration" that would justify the deletion of an article absent a clear consensus for this outcome. John254 04:22, 15 January 2008 (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.