Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Ring Clock
It did win a second place in an annual design award, which may well make it notable, as far as I'm aware there isn't a guideline for the notability of devices. And as to the COI issues: there are mentions of design drawbacks of the clock which seems to rule out strict vanity.  Sections might need cleanup "Future plans" is a boarderline ikipedia is not a crystal ball violation and the detail given to the construction methods and design team may be excessive.  I'd say 'weak' keep based on the boarderline notability and writing issues. Oh, and to the author, just because wikipedia has worse isn't a reason to save this one.  Your arguments weren't bad, but they also didn't assert a grounding in wiki policy to keep the articles. The number of people that see the clock and mention it unfortunately isn't verifiable, and isn't really a source of wikipedia-defintion notability (a lot of peopel see the donut stand on the corner of North and Oakland too, and it's very distinctive architecturally, but it hardly deserves a wikipedia entry (donutcruft?)).  If the design award can be proven, then that's the strongest argument in my book, as would non-trivial articles or mentions in notable press, heck, even the thesis paper the designers wrote, if published in a reputable journal would go a long way
— User:129, 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:W (Help:Watchlist)