Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phased vector control of induction motors


 * 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. Userfication requests on my talk page please. They will be encouragingly entertained.  Wifione  Message 09:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Phased vector control of induction motors

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unencyclopedic essay; it looks like it was copied and pasted from a patent application. PROD was removed by the author without comment. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability - a patent is most certainly not evidence thereof! &mdash; RHaworth 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is based on the results of research and set experiments. The theory has been proven on a prototype. This is a new matter that is why the patent has been issued on it. The article material has not been copied from anywhere and has been written by the author of the article. Vector motor control was introduced not that long ago. Phased vector motor control is superior technology as it better emulates three-phase voltage to control an induction motor. I will put in more links to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonov777 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the subject been written about in independent, secondary sources? Whether the theory is sound or unsound is not directly relevant to whether the subject is notable. VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The subject is the same as Space vector modulation but the vectors are different. Phased vectors give closer emulation of three-phase waveforms to the ideal. Also, the used zero vectors eliminate shorting of motor contacts. These are the main enhancements/differences. Looks simple but gives good results. I tried to give more details to show the scientific side of it and the results of the experiments. If it doesn't work I can cut it short to leave just the differences between Space (traditional) and Phased vector controls. These are notable facts disclosed in the patent. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonov777 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have re-worked the whole article leaving bear facts. I have also included a bunch of internal links to related subjects. Hope now it is in compliance. Please let me know if anything else is required correction. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonov777 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2011 September 11. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as an essay. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I've wikified the article a bit. I don't really know enough about the subject matter, but it seems to fail the notability guidelines - minimal coverage outside of the patents, which aren't sufficient sources for notability. Perhaps if the references I've listed under Further reading could be incorporated into the article it would pass. Yunshui (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The topic by itself would appear to be notable. For example, it gets much attention in this book (which has a wider scope): The book contains many references to articles on the topic that are reliable sources. That having been said, the present article is not a suitably encyclopedic article on this topic: it describes one particular (non-notable) approach in detail, without proper explanation of the underlying principles and without relating it to the wider picture. Nothing is lost by deleting it. (A possible alternative is redirecting (without merge) to Vector control (motor) – unfortunately not a strong article either. However, the article title is not a plausible search term.)  --Lambiam 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added more notable sources under references and further reading documents. Please consider. Thanks. Antonov777 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Related to a wider picture by showing problems of traditional vector control (taken from brushed DC motors article) and how Phased vector control solves some of them. Thanks. Antonov777 (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Commment the problem here appears to be that this is largely a synthesis of materials around the subject to support it, rather than sources directly about this subject. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this found in any textbooks? What is it called exactly?  I keep trying different things in Google book search.    D r e a m Focus  10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a problem here that the talk page for the article has been deleted, twice in fact, both times on September 11.  There are copyvio claims on the main article that should have an explanation on the talk page.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * userfy (or delete) Given that it is not possible to properly review this article with the talk page missing, and given that the nomination has not advanced a reason for deletion, and given that there is a !vote that calls a technical paper an essay, and given the evidence that this topic is notable even if the content doesn't show it, and given the proper cooperation of the principle author to improve the article, I suggest that it be userfied.  My concern with userfication is that the current material is sufficiently incomprehensible or too technically advanced, that there is only a small chance that the article will be improved to the point of being useful.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 18 September 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.