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 no consensus. Wifione ^Message 06:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handle-o-Meter

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising without relevant content. The previous afd was about merging but I can't think of or find any page where the content might be of any value. (Basically a stray article left over from times where sourcing and notability was handled more liberal.) TMCk (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being the nominator.TMCk (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 01:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:GNG Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or merge to Johnson & Johnson. Per above, fails WP:GNG, is not sourced sufficiently to merge, but is a product of a notable company. If someone is searching for this particular product, it only makes sense to redirect to the company that makes it, and include a sourced one-or-two-sentence blurb about it there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching Google Scholar brings some references. I give you: Orin C. Hansen Jr., Leon Marker, Karl W. Ninnemann, Orville J. Sweeting "Relationship between dynamic modulus of thin films and stiffness, as determined by the Handle-O-Meter" Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2003 [1] Several other journal articles mention the tool, and it's also mentioned in a lot of patent applications[2] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but are those references about the Handle-O-Meter, or do they simply mention the Handle-O-Meter? It doesn't seem like it to me. Its verifiability is not the problem. Its notability is. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources exist to keep: this journal article directly details, this journal does also, Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. Lots more available for perusal. Ghits don't by themselves count, but 6,250 Book ghits seems pretty impressive for a non-notable item. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't do that. It's clearly discussed above that existance is not in question so links that just show it exists, as the first and third do, aren't useful. The second is slightly better but only marginally so. Can you imagine building an article from the material that you just located? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2012 (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.