Comment clarified as requested. I neither regard the citations in question as particularly respectable on the one hand, nor care on the other hand whether they were brought down from the mountain on stone tablets with Supreme Court certification and approval; the operative point is that they are irrelevant. Read what I said: "Since neither of the two "inventions" is of any significance, reference to them should be ... removed from Wikipedia ... if it is felt that some justification for calling him an inventor is necessary, possibly one of his condoms could replace the tower doodle." Consider: suppose some reputable news source were to assert that in primary school one of his school friends noticed him wetting his pants on one occasion; we would object to such an item as being too non-encyclopaedic and non-notable for inclusion in WP, irrespective of whether the citation were from an unknown local rag or from the Times supported by affidavits. To justify inclusion presumed accuracy and verifiability are necessary, but not sufficient. The condom thing is a pretty ignominious basis for calling him an inventor, groupie stuff in short, but since it is marketed and patented, and possibly effective for all I know, go ahead; some readers might enjoy a snigger. The other two items never got beyond childish nonsense even if mommy thinks they are ever so cute; more or less on a par with the pants wetting.