Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave Modulation (WAM)


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wave Modulation (WAM)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. This nomination came out of a discussion at Wikiproject Electronics which is copied below by way of explication.  Spinning Spark  06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a brand new article. The article's title, Wave Modulation (WAM), does not seem to fit the references provided. One source pertains to a United States patent but I don't see how this relates to the article's subject. Also, I think a patent is not considered a reliable source if there is supposed to be a demonstration of notability. Yet, as I said, it doesn't seem related to the subject.

The link is broken for another source. And a third source, an academic journal article, does not seem related to the subject. Does anyone know anything about this topic?

From a Google search, here is one related article:.

Personally, I think this topic is too new to merit inclusion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Right now, it looks like a good bit of hype, with pretty strong claims: Netowrk World and TN Technology. Patents and press releases do not a reliable source make, and I could not find any papers on the topic in GScholar. --Mark viking (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It would seem that Magnacom are being deliberately secretive about what the technique actually is. Under those circumstances it is impossible to have a technical article about the subject.  The current article is a mixture of truisms ("using spectral compression to improve spectral efficiency"), already well known principles ("diversity of time and frequency domains", "non linear signal shaping") and uninterpretable analogy ("1,000 dots on a piece of paper").  In its current state, I would support a nomination for deletion.  It might be possible to have instead an article on Magnacom and/or its products if it meets WP:ORG but the current article isn't that.  Spinning  Spark  11:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark and Spinning Spark - I agree with both of you. And thanks for pointing out the mixture of truisms (certainly nothing special about this article). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Patents are not good sources for establishing notability. They are WP:PRIMARY sources which are acceptably that allow verification of technical details in articles. ~KvnG 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - this looks very much like hype (WP:ADV); either the material is nothing new, meaning existing articles, or nothing is being given away here. No sign of proper notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep - Notability established by, and . It may be hype but it is hype that has been covered by WP:RELIABLE sources and that makes it notable. ~KvnG 06:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We surely have to apply some critical processing to what people print. All we know for sure is that Magnacom intend to launch a new product at a show later this year.  There is nothing we can say about a new modulation technique (even if it really exists) because we don't know anything.  Stripped of the hype and vague assertions, the page would essentially be blank.  This article purports to be about the modulation technique, not the company, or the launch of the product.  It is those latter things, in my opinion, that the pages you link to would add notability to, but not to the actual subject.  Spinning  Spark  09:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is nothing notable about this article or its content, and no proof of a novel electronic device or technique. Any coverage found via Google searches are public relations ploys, i.e., hype. Also, coverage via Google search does not reveal a novel electronic device or technique. Maybe in time something novel and worthy of note per WP:GNG will be revealed, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (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.