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 nonencyclopaedic and nonnotable 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