Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetimer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus was that this product does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Planetimer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sign of WP:NOTABILITY in article; Google results are a sea of sales sites, rather than anything indicating real notability. User ID of article creator is the same as name of item's inventor. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wow, I wish I had been here in August to say delete as searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing, non-notable watch article which should've been deleted the first time. SwisterTwister   talk  20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is just spam, written by the guy who invented and patented this strange timepiece. DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Interesting mechanism, but one whose encyclopedic notability is not demonstrated in reliable sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Reviewers, Thank you for the editing and propositions to improve my article and I’m glad to read the critics.

Based on Wikipedia criterion, I’d like to appeal to the nomination of Planetimer article to AfD:

1)	This article is not original research, as the content corresponds and in accordance to proven and investigated theory of mechanics and by essence describes the aggregates as assembling solutions of gears, at least based on advanced by NASA gear bearing technology (http://itpo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/gsc_14207_1_gearbearing.pdf) applied to watch mechanics;

2)	In spite of this developments are not as design as really qualitatively new technical solutions the article was written in neutral point of view manner, as a kind of mechanical watch realization;

3)	The article content is Verifiable as patented by WIPO, has passed the expertise by the essence by Swiss and Netherlands accredited experts and published in Worldwide database with the reference on the bottom of the article;

4)	This article was written by author and owner of patent rights, so it has not copyright problems a priori.

Best regards,

Sergiy Sheyko--www.planetimer.com 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs)
 * Sergiy, none of that conquers the concerns that are being expressed by multiple editors above, that this article fails Wikipedia notability standards. We're just not finding significant secondary sources talking about the planetimer, which is what our General Notability Guidelines call for. If you want to conquer that concern, you'd best find some verifiable secondary sources discussing your invention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nat, yes, formally you are right; really, I do not paid attention to publish in any others independent sources. However, by essence the topic describing the assembling of well proved and verifiable solutions doesn’t need additional confirmation, it is obviously not the fake! Moreover patent expertise is much more professional, as many others magazine’s examinations.

By appealing to DOwenWilliams about “strange timepiece” – in spite of elegancy, these solutions are the most optimal and reliable for realization of watch gear reduction mechanism, allowing at least to create the slimmest movement.

www.planetimer.com 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. while the claims of the article are true, most likely, this does not solve the problem of notability. Just being true and useful is not enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines; they most likely will not be changed to fit your article.
 * For your information, I would also point out that being granted a patent is not scientific validation in the slightest - a few perpetual motion machines have been granted patents. It is, in essence, legal validation: for some invention that does something in some way, intellectual property is granted to the inventor over any machine that does a similar thing in a similar way, and the patent examination aims to check that the patent can be granted under law (that usually forbids over-broad patents, patenting of abstract ideas, and bear other limitations). Whether the method does, in fact, do what it claims is irrelevant. Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To be. The perpetual comparison is inappropriate. These devices are in full concordance to physics, and simply they present another visualization way by optimal arrangements of gears and drivers. If the devices do the same in different ways it could not be irrelevancy, especially if it goes about esthetics, and if new solution is more reliable along with taking of less volume.

Please not to be so formal, reasonable evaluate, if somebody presents in Wikipedia qualitatively new obvious technical solution what the problem?! Moreover patents are really disclose and prove, however the required notable articles only presents.

Sergiy Sheyko (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly not notable. Also, obvious WP:COI. PianoDan (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To be. It have not seen any the critics by the essence, only formal criteria and any modification how it should be. Obvious sabotage.


 * 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.