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. Courcelles 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep this seems like an article I started long ago (years+) as User:Reswobslc, and I have no WP:COI nor relationship with the maker other than owning one of these. The external links at the end look unnecessary (not added by me) and have all been removed, otherwise... article certainly isn't meant as an ad, doesn't contain sales-oriented language (WP:ADVERT) and has stood on its own quite a long time. Casascius♠ (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I found this useful when researching energy meters exactly because it's not an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.245.57 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (Note: This comment constitutes the first and only edit by this user. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The device does not appear to be notable. No Reliable Source references are provided. It may "not be advertising" but the website for the manufacturer of the device is prominently displayed. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Article is almost like a product review, no proof of any notability established. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:37, 22 December 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.