Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid level indicator

: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. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Liquid level indicator]]=

:{{la|Liquid level indicator}} ([{{fullurl:Liquid level indicator|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid level indicator}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I don't believe the United States Patent Office counts as a source of notability Citius Altius (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. A patent with no actual products sold would have to be really interesting to merit an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ANSWERING YOUR CONCERNS:

1) Citius Altius says: "I don't believe the United States Patent Office counts as a source of notability".

My answer: With all due respect, your saying "i don't believe" is not really an argument because it indicates your personal preference and opinion whereas I am looking for an an objective criteria that I , to your understanding, has violated. I can in the same way say that i DO believe that the United States Patent Office counts as a source of notability. If the US administrative agency is not a source of credible information, then we should pull out all invention pages off the wiki.

2) Hairhorn says: "A patent with no actual products sold would have to be really interesting to merit an entry."

Please let me know where did you obtain such data that this invention was never sold as part of the product? According to my knowledge this patent has been used on many vessels and sold by ERL Commercial Marine. With all due respect. please get your facts right before making such strong proposal for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevpak (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Please put the facts in the article if they're so significant; the article mentions a patent only, and searching online for "liquid level indicator" doesn't help much. And it's clear to me that not all inventions are notable. I would bet the majority are not notable, by the wikipedia definition of notability (which involves, by the way, plenty of objective criteria). Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Five of the article's six references are completely invalid. The name of the supposed product can be applied to absolutely every single piece of liquid level monitoring equipment out there[http://images.google.com/images?q=%22liquid+level+indicator%22] and a more specific search for [http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Liquid%20level%20indicator%22%20ERL "Liquid level indicator" ERL] only produced 29 irrelevant results. I found no signs of notability whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Rankiri . Also, Citius Altius is correct that just being patented does not satisfy the notability requirement of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Lots of useless and non-notable junk gets patented, and Wikipedia is not a mirror of any country's patent database. Other inventions, such as incandescent lights, airplanes, or lasers have the required multipe reliable sources, so demanding the deletion of every other article about inventions is silly. Edison (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2009 (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.