Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpositional modulation


 * 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. As non-notable fringe technology.  Sandstein  19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Transpositional modulation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite several patents granted to the inventor of this technology, no articles about it have appeared in any peer-reviewed technical journals and, to date, no saleable products have been produced based on this technology. My own belief is that the technology is not feasible (see the "Dubious" section of the talk page), but it would be WP:OR to disprove the technology (again, since no peer review has yet occurred for this technology). However, the lack of any reliable sources argues that Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Without pronouncing on the merits of the technology, that article is insufficiently sourced (cutting out the homegrown stuff, it comes down to two newspaper puff pieces) and overly promotional (how often is Gerdes' name mentioned?).-- Elmidae  (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I would encourage keeping the stub because examiners at the USPTO have determined that the technology is within the real of possibility Chapter 2100. Scroll down to: 2143.02 "Reasonable Expectation of Success Is Required [R-08.2012]" for more detail. In addition, the subject is non-trivial. Specific reasons for skepticism about the technology could be added to the entry. The question of whether the technology will work is still unsettled by either the company or technology skeptics.  Gerdes is mentioned frequently because he is the inventor and so far represents most of the verifiable public sources about the subject. That is an editing issue that can be corrected. CosmicEngineMan (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As I have mentioned at User talk:CosmicEngineMan, patent examiners are not generally experts in the fields of the patents they examine, and for them, the "realm of possibility" is pretty wide. Many patents have been granted for inventions that could not actually work, and no requirement exists for the invention to actually work to be granted a patent. Since Wikipedia requires reliable sources (and for technology issues such as this, those sources would generally entail technical journals), and since no such sources exist for this technology, it seems that we should delete this article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, this is pure WP:FRINGE. Notice that the granting of a patents does not amount to peer-review (see WP:PATENTS). Tigraan (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2016 (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.