Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Ruler

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. (X! · talk) · @241 · 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Ruler[edit]

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

NN invention. Probably better off to merge it into Ruler. Prod was declined by the author.-- Syrthiss (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few mentions in advertisements and blogs but nothing that meets WP:N. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable - and as such it shouldn't be merged. andy (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has sufficient references to show notability. :Majen27 · talk 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're advertisements and blogs, not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is a real, existing object, as the photos show, and not a hoax. Since there is likely to be information about it, it is worth writing about in an encyclopedia. Dew Kane (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of something does not mean it's notable or encyclopedic. As our guidelines at WP:NOT#OR make clear, "If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it". I've looked for references and found nothing. This article shouldn't even be here until those references exist. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure a catchy product on the market like this is notable. The photo alone is proof of its existence. Dew Kane (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that existence is the same as notability then you need to read up on Wikipedia policies. If you think that challenging notability is the same as an accusation of hoax then you need to read a dictionary. andy (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2010 (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.