Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqualin

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aqualin

Aqualin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non-notable instrument WP:NN Googling aqualin +violin -skin -moisturizer -herbicide -pesticide -wikipedia yields a whopping 34 hits. Not impressive for an instrument that's been around for 30 years or so. __Just plain Bill 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice someone has added mention of the Guinness book of records. Hmm. If something was "once listed" in the record book, does that make it notable? This instrument needs a stouter defense than that IMO. __Just plain Bill 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the Guiness thing, and I agree that that doesn't make this violin notable. It's only notable if there's in-depth sources on it, which there don't appear to be. The Guiness thing is just about the only thing I could find about it. Pan Dan 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete One human interest news story is not notability. DGG 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:RS. The only cited reference (the Washington Post article is a profile of the inventor and his mother, and only mentions the Aqualin in passing. Caknuck 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It makes sense that there's plenty of unsourced detail, considering MarkMGottlieb (talk • contribs) wrote the article. Aqualin Mark Gottlieb gets no non-Wikipedia/mirror hits. Without any further sources, it doesn't meet basic notability guidelines requiring multiple examples of non-trivial published coverage. -- Scientizzle 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I was unable to find multiple, non-trivial sources to prove the subject's notability, nor have any been found by others. The Washington Post article is a trivial mention. I'd suggest merging into Mark Gottlieb (inventor) (who may be notable, having a Washington Post article written on him), but that article doesn't exist. -- Black Falcon 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A Mark Gottlieb article exists, but it's about an unrelated person. -- Black Falcon 22:46, 27 March 2007 (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.