Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple oscillation mechanism

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple oscillation mechanism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a neologism for one minor corner of the very long history of rotary cam mechanisms. There is no novelty, sourcing or notability here to support a specific stand-alone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this topic in Google news, books, or scholar. The animation comes from this page, which indicated that the mechanism is the subject of a patent, but patents are not considered reliable sources. Thus the topic seems to fail general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The author of the article also looks like the inventor, raising conflict of interest problems, per WP:COI, and rendering this article promotional in nature. A non-notable topic and serious article problems suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tried, but could not establish notability. ~KvnG 14:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched, but could not find any reliable sources. -- 101.119.15.5 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2013 (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.