Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handle-o-Meter (3rd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Handle-o-Meter
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and product-specifc notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD's. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete this could be merged to Johnson & Johnson, but my merge proposal attracted only one comment and that was against the proposal, as it wasn't clear if this material is notable enough for inclusion in that article. I could find no evidence it was notable enough for a standalone article. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist to consider UtherSRG's sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NPRODUCT. A couple of journal articles were brought up in a previous nom but I'm unconvinced they demonstrate sigcov. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage can be found in the following sources:
 * SailingInABathTub 🛁 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The third and fourth source are purely passing mentions. The other three discuss, via experiment results, the limits of the tool's usefulness. Looking at what I can, and comparing with what's written in GNG, it looks like these could fail via discussion: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I posit that any information gleaned from these sources would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and so fails GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * SailingInABathTub 🛁 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The third and fourth source are purely passing mentions. The other three discuss, via experiment results, the limits of the tool's usefulness. Looking at what I can, and comparing with what's written in GNG, it looks like these could fail via discussion: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I posit that any information gleaned from these sources would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and so fails GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The third and fourth source are purely passing mentions. The other three discuss, via experiment results, the limits of the tool's usefulness. Looking at what I can, and comparing with what's written in GNG, it looks like these could fail via discussion: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I posit that any information gleaned from these sources would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and so fails GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Sources located by SailingInABathTub (not UtherSRG as the relist note says) are enough to convince me that this is a notable technical device within the paper industry. Following the references from one of the cited papers, I was able to locate a digitized copy of the 1955 trade publication article that announced the product: . It's not an independent source, so it doesn't contribute to notability, but it looks like a useful source to flesh out the article. I'm often astonished what obscure sources can be found on the internet these days! Jfire (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.