Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbitless drive


 * 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 redirect to Gear train. If there is some content that can be reliably sourced to merge into the target article, then the contents are still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Orbitless drive

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Has not attracted independent coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * delete per GNG. I'm seeing a small number of mentions of Orbitless Drives Inc. but not enough significant coverage of the technology itself. It is WP:TOSOON to create a page on this new technology. --mikeu talk 13:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I could support a merge of the info described in the comment below. --mikeu talk 16:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - just deleting this seems wrong. The company is plainly not notable; Stocco himself might be (h-index is 12); but the abstract concept of the orbitless drive is very interesting as pure engineering, going back to Watt and his planetary gearbox, if not indeed to the Antikythera mechanism. The orbitless gear is a significant invention, commercial or not. If the article can't be kept I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Gear train as there's sufficient sourcing for a section of that article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The orbitless gear is a significant invention, commercial or not. Seems to be your own opinion. I'd agree if there was some independent coverage of it, but at the moment all we have are references by the inventor and the article has also been written by them so there are major NOR issues. Based off this the research has barely been cited by other researchers either. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. I know gearboxes a bit, but not enough to assess the engineering importance of this. But I would tend to agree with Chiswick Chap that this belongs somewhere else. The rhetoric of the page makes it sound revolutionary, which is standard advertising speak for new run of the mill engineering products. Source searches point mostly to the company site or press releases. On its own, a GNG fail, but possibly it should be merged somewhere. My instinct says there are a hundred gearbox variations like this though. It is certainly not a harmonic drive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * delete spam. took one look into user's contribution. he's obviously here to promote his own product. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To avoid pushback, I am making no futher edits to the article. However, if someone else would care to do the honours, there have been 2 independent references published in Power Transmission Engineering Magazine: "Pushing Forward with Belts and Chains", Power Transmission Engineering, p. 22, Jun. 2018. "Familiar Goals, New Solutions", Power Transmission Engineering, pp. 24-25, Oct. 2017. In addition I have been invited to present this work at the AGMA Fall Technical Meeting in Oct 2019 so additional references are forthcoming. --Cookinleo (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2019 (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.