Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jung super regulator


 * 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 - nothing to stop it being recreated if it achieves notability later on. Yomangani talk 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jung super regulator
An article that seems to exist merely to promote a product. There's nothing unique or notable about this voltage regulator. Atlant 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete, but make sure you follow the steps carefully when creating these pages, or strange things happen... yandman  14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would have actually used the db-g11 tag. --Nehwyn 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Pare down considerably and Merge to Voltage_regulator. The article is not actually spam, even though it kind of reads that way.  Walt Jung, the designer, doesn't sell them, he just designed them and made the design publicly available.  There are a fair number of G-Hits (about 2000 if you add up the various combinations).  I think a brief mention in Voltage_regulator is OK. - Richfife 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I disagree with a merge; there's nothing notable about a dual-output regulator that uses two '709 op-amps.


 * Atlant 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason for this article is to gather and condence the facts around this regulator topology because it's very interesting from a technical point of view and it has also a certain aura as something "super". There are a couple of commercial products and also a couple of DIY products which we can call "semi-commercial" or "hobby level". My contribution will be to point to the difference between a conventional regulator and this "super" regulator. What I had in mind was to draw a couple pictures with only necessary elements, only for pedagogical purposes. Those who want a very detailed description may read the articles by Mr. Walt Jung. Notice that Walt Jung has written about the regulator and also made together with Mr. Jan Didden a printed circuit board which neither of them sell. Audio Xpress sells this particualr pcb but remember that the article is 10 years old and the pcb is not very adopted to pratical usage. From the discussion over at www.diyaudio.com much info has been gathered but who have the energy to read all that. I admit that I sell a pcb once in a while but the main purpose here is to gathering knowledge. I don't think either that I would sudeenly sell thousands of boards. This will never happen. I don't mind to merge the article to voltage regulators but I plan to write much more. The 709 schematic is an example of a super regulator from the "stone age" sort of speaking and this serves as a background. I think also that a couple of photos of super regulators would be appropiate. I have take photos of a dozen different types and before publication I will the people behind those if it's OK to publish them.

--Peranders 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The problem here is that it's not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia, even if it is a very interesting circuit. yandman  12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How come? A few brilliant keystrokes and you'll get something extra in performance. I'll admit that this isn't basic knowledge exactly, more like expert knowledge but since many people have or will be hearing about this regulator type I think an article is pretty good. I don't know if you know electronics but this regulator is a factor of 1000 better in many parameters!

--Peranders 12:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply If you'll allow to play devil's advocate for a moment here, clever and useful things aren't within the scope of Wikipedia (one man's clever is another man's obvious). They have to be notable and recognized within their field. - Richfife 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, where do we stand right now? Should I continue or just give it up, let the article be as it is? --Peranders 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As insurance, you might want to copythe article content to a sub-page off of your personal page. For example, copy the article here. If the article ends up getting deleted, this archived text would allow you to recreate a better article sometime in the future.


 * Atlant 13:12, 16 October 2006 (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.