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. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovilus[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE device that has no WP:FRINGE#Independent sources indicating its notability. The lack of serious sources means the article simply cannot be written under the rules of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the weak notability and fringey sources make it impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Been used on several television episodes including Ghost Adventures, Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters Academy 66.67.22.4 (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by name in over 45 books on this list: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Ovilus%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.22.4 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any book on that list that's not written from a fringe pseudoscience perspective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For basically the same reasons as JPS and bobrayner - a device of only WP:FRINGE utility which is only mentioned in Fringe sources will be effectively impossible to have an article for it which meets wikipedia standards. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic has not received serious, in depth coverage by sources independent of the fringe perspective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reliable sources that discuss the device. Goblin Face (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen a lot of Google Books mentions, but most that mention it appear to be self-published works. I didn't read all of them though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note that all three of the sources are self-published books --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:49, 4 March 2014 (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.