Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's Pen


 * 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 merge to Museum Boerhaave. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Einstein's Pen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Pishcal — ♣ 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 03:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, notability may not be inherited but this item is on display in a museum of history and science. bbx (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that an item on display in a museum is notable for being on display. Where is this mentioned in our guidelines? Does that make millions of artifacts on display in 55.000 museums (De Gruyter) notable? Also, how are you going to control for the display changes? Museum collections contain many more items. gidonb (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per other nom in article. We cannot have an article on every object in evry museum.  It this case the object is only notable for an inherited reason.  In its own right it is a NN pen.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - Since this is an item in the collection of Museum Boerhaave, I had previously suggested merging this article into the entry of the museum (see discussion). Current references do not support an independent entry. gidonb (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - While this pen may indeed be in a museum, it does not warrant an article in its own right. If this is permitted to remain as is, it could begin a trend that could be problematic in the future. Consider such articles as Robert E Lee's Wallet, George Washington's Handkerchief, or even Malcolm X's Boxing Gloves. While such things may warrant notable mention elsewhere, they do not justify unique articles in and of themselves. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2015 (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.