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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fractor[edit]

Article looks like a non-existent electrical component. A search on google for that particular thing doesn't turn up anything. All the pages used as references are about calculus, not electronics. Only one significant author. Maybe hoax? Andante1980 (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a hoax, just an obscure conceptual model. Google Scholar results for "fractor+bohannan" and "fractor+chen" yield papers with mostly one or two citations, and I can't find a broad article other than these two guys' writings. --Dhartung | Talk 11:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not wholly conceptual: they are seeking licensing partners and Bohannan has formed a company. Still doesn't seem notable yet -- I'm surprised it hasn't been in Pop Mech, though. --Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I barely got through calculus, alas (I was a Comp. Lit. major), but my lay understanding of this is that it is the equivalent of a dimmer switch for certain kinds of electronics, famously limited to bits that are on or off. This would have applications, as touted, for many industrial control devices, in that the fractional calculus can be used to design the dielectric parts so that they behave predictably across a range of settings. If anyone wonders why the papers all seem to be about mathematics, that's why. --Dhartung | Talk 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for while I proudly failed calculus, this makes sense. Rescue and clean up. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is real, but as I stated above, I wasn't able to find enough in the way of independently sourced material for an article -- mainly papers by the authors/inventors and press releases from the school and associated business ventures. It's an interesting invention but it apparently has not yet attracted investment interest. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone invents a gizwhack (patent pending) in their basement (or even at a college) and wants to promote it on Wikipedia? That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Come back when it satisfies WP:N. No prejudice against future creation of an article when it gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. (We used to refer to any gadget whose name could not be thought of as a "razzofractor." Just saying.) And what is this "calculous" that they keep referring to in the article and at the developer's website [1]? Curious commonality of invented spelling. Possible conflict of interest? Edison 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Edison. -Verdatum 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.