Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IP Magnetic Coupling


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

IP Magnetic Coupling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A commercial product, claiming the notability of the generic device, a magnetic particle clutch.

Even the name here is dubious. Does "IP" stand for the maker's name, IP weatherproofing ("IP ratings" are a standard industry term) or for the claimed "Incapsulated Powder" (sic).

WP can use better articles on mechanical components like this, and really needs work on Magnetic particle clutch. However unsourced COI articles on one maker's narrow product range aren't the way to go forwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * The IP in the name refers to the fact that it is Incapsulated, it is written like this and not like Encapsulated to also point out the fact that it has a high IP rating, still learning how Wikipedia works and i am reticent with editing someone's article but i am trying my best to learn. I decided to write an article about a patented method to build magnetic couplings which is referred to by the patent owner as IP magnetic coupling. If it is decided that this page should be deleted i will be merging some of the information presented here to the magnetic coupling general page. Also this has nothing to do with the magnetic particle clutch this is purely magnetic while that one is electromagnetic. SoreaAlex (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - one reference is to another wikipedia article and as such is not authoritative. The second reference does not even mention the name of the subject and appears to be a listing of products.  The third reference appears to have nothing to do with the subject and instead relates to "Understanding the IP (Ingress Protection) Ratings of iButton Data Loggers and Capsule".--Rpclod (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2015 (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.