Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variable length flexible stylus


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Variable length flexible stylus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable product, article started by its inventor. Lack of third-party references indicates a lack of WP:GNG compliance. Max Semenik (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

From the definition of Notability "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The main subject of silverpoint drawing has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (http://silverpointweb.com) The information provided is verifiable as to the inflexible stylus and is the subject of study by Watros, The Craft of Old Master Drawings;"The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:_PJmbQDg7i0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33) 208.105.82.246 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC) To sign previous edit. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SarahStierch (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Information that is presently not verifyable for WIKI is my email correspondence from two recognized authorities on Renaissance art history saying that in their studies, they could not recall any references to a silverpoint stylus as being flexible.

A further subtopic of silverpoint drawing is the ground upon which silverpoint drawing is made using a stylus. This also has been the subject of study. With all the past discourse available, I present a solution to the limited range of values that has been the enigma of the medium. A study of the relative hardness of various materials using the Mohs system, supplies the answer by the the use of a water based correction fluid.

My discoveries overturn long held beliefs about the medium. To insure that credit for this discovery goes to an American artist, I applied for and obtained a patent on the system. Written into the patent description is the formula explaining that the dark to light Values are a function of the length of a flexible stylus. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 If the consensus is keep, an appropriate illustration from the patent would be used for educational purposes. If the editors need verification as to my sources and correspondence, please advise the procedures for disclosure of their names and authority as I understand that disclosure of the email correspondence may be inappropriate without explicit permission from the writer to disclose the email. (help) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is merely excerpts from Mitchsdiamond's patent application -- no reason to think this device is notable. There is already an article on silverpoint and Mitchsdiamond may be an excellent person to contribute to that, with the understanding that there is likely no place at all on WP for either mention of his patent (see WP:COI) or his "discoveries [which] overturn long held beliefs" about silverpoint drawing (WP:OR). EEng (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (P.S. A patent is not grounds for notability.)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasons. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT
Rewritten on my talk page.

ADDRESSING WP:GNG Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Refer to silverpoint characteristics. The stylus is a subject that is directly addressed in detail of the main topic of silverpoint.

ORPHAN links to silverpoint, silverpoint links to VLFS.

WP:OR and WP:COI have been addressed.

Silverpoint has been edited shifting VLFS to characteristics.

Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (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.