Deletion of Bayley Gap

Comment: I don't think it's a hoax as such; rather the contributor's design of triggerable spark gap with a fan for cooling and arc extinction. Fails  and , and the sockpuppetry is a little annoying. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR)

Comment: I'm leaning more towards . 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which are about this; 0 gnews hits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: There is no way an invention in 2008 will have passed peer review, let alone the  threshold, barring it being done by a Nobel laureate.  Someone should also explain to the article creator about 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SOCK)

Comment: 3 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=6N4&q=%22Bayley+Gap%22&btnG=Search ghits, none for g-news. Fails at  & . All the "keep" er "Stay" comments seem ...umm... read them yourself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm not even sure this "Baylay Gap" exists. Even if it does, it obviously hasn't achieved substantial independent coverage to pass . To the author: Simply existing isn't a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not even for a scientific discovery or electronics product. And while, sure, this "Bayley Gap" might be known around the world in a few years, to include it in Wikipedia now would be in violation of rystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:C)

Comment: Fails , as no one at all (other than
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: absolutely no |reliable, |independent source. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IS)