Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mechanical colored pencils and leads


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List of mechanical colored pencils and leads

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or sales directory to present product lines. See WP:promotion and WP:NOTCATALOG. PROD declined. Respectfully submitted.  Cind. amuse  12:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is really only a very rough draft at this point, and I admit that I should have worked on it for a few days or weeks first. I mean this to be a resource to artists, not product promotion. Admittedly, the two are somewhat intertwined, since the products artists use are, after all, products... I meant this to be similar to the many software comparison lists which are already present on Wikipedia, for example this one for digital art programs. If it's judged non-worthy for Wikipedia, that's okay, I'll just take it offline and keep maintaining it on another wiki. Esn (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, can you list the specific sentences in those pages you linked to that my article does not follow? I can't really find them. There are things there about not mentioning prices, which it doesn't, and about "loosely-associated" topics, which this isn't, as the topic is quite clearly defined... Esn (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep there is a sound subject area covered by this article. Mechanical pencils are understood by those who use them to be a distinctly defined area of tools for making marks, generally on paper. Those who use these tools often familiarize themselves to the best of their ability with the various brands and their capabilities. It seems like a reasonably good resource. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Esn (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. There are still a number of issues that I haven't figured out yet with the article. For example, the list of colours for each brand, which I feel is important but which takes up too much space in a table when there are more than a few of them. If only Wikipedia had a "HideableNotes" template like the PandoraWiki does, long information could be hidden in a table if it takes up too much space. But I have no idea about how to do something like that on Wikipedia - doesn't that require changes to common.js?... In short, this isn't my area. I left a comment about this at the NavFrame talkpage. Another issue has to do with the long history that colored mechanical pencils have: there are a fair number of them that were manufactured decades ago but no longer. Many of these are listed on this page. Also, this is a pretty niche area, so there isn't much information in major publications that I've found - most of the information gathering about these I've seen is done on a number of blogs and enthusiast websites such as the link above, penciltalk.org and Dave's Mechanical Pencils. Esn (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see this necessarily as intended to promote any one product line, given that it compiles information about several competing products.  It seems a very reasonable break-out article from the mechanical pencil article.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is not what Wikipedia is for, it may be appropriate for some other website but it doesn't belong here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. The WP:PROMOTION claim in the nomination doesn't really deserve much discussion given that it's about style, not subject matter, and this list cannot reasonably be read as promotional material (and if it did, that would be an issue for cleanup, not deletion).  WP:NOTCATALOG is also not applicable, as it only says don't list sales prices.  Which this list doesn't (and if it did, that would be an issue for cleanup, not deletion).  It doesn't say anything about not listing or comparing commercial products, which is quite common on Wikipedia and well-tested by consensus.  So it's purely a question of whether it's appropriate to list and compare examples of this particular product, which neither of the deletion !voters have actually discussed.  Acronyms are not arguments (unless WP:NOTMECHANICALCOLOREDPENCILLIST existed). My concern is that none of these models apparently merit their own articles, and apparently only half of the brands of the models included are notable, so the notability of this list's entries gets rather attenuated.  There is a paragraph at Mechanical pencils that summarizes the available products and who makes them, so I wonder why that (whether as is or if somewhat expanded) is not sufficient detail to cover the subtopic.  Particularly since I don't see a single reliable source in the list that is about the topic as a whole (I am skeptical that the website "Dave's Mechanical Pencils" counts).  Instead, it's mostly cited to company pages.  And so aside from concerns about the notability of the list's topic and entries, and aside from concern about going into unnecessary detail, there is also the concern that I can't tell why these colored pencil models were listed and compared and not others.  If I don't see adequate answers to these questions, then I would support deletion.  If the editors of mechanical pencil still want to include this table in that article, however, that is a matter for discussion on that article's talk page.  postdlf (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the reason why "these colored pencil models were listed and compared and not others" is that there aren't really that many companies that make or have made mechanical coloured pencils, which is why this comparison list should remain manageable. There are still some historical ones to be added from the link at the bottom of the article. Finding unquestionably respectable, non-internet, non-company-linked sources is a bit tricky since this is a niche market - they may exist, but I haven't had the chance to look very carefully. The companies making them are notable, though not all have Wikipedia articles yet. There are a lot of software lists (I'd say the vast majority) who use mainly the official sites of the software as the reference for their features. Also, though the sources are blogs, they do post pictures of what they're reviewing - which I think are fairly objective "proofs" that the items do exist. Esn (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. In answer to another criticism, I've just added some wikilinks for articles to the company pages; they existed, I just hadn't done it before. The only one on the list that doesn't have an article at the moment is Kaweco - though it probably should, since it has existed since 1883. Esn (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief kill it quick before it multiplies If ever an article justified WP:NOTCATALOG, this is it. Leave the comparison shopping guides to other sites, please. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As I stated before, I can't find which part of WP:NOTCATALOG specifically this doesn't follow. Also, Wikipedia already lists plenty of "comparison shopping" guides - see all of the software comparison guides. Since you pay for your internet and storage medium, downloading even free software costs you money, probably comparable to the few dollars that most of these pencil leads would cost to buy. Just because something's "virtual" doesn't mean that you're not shopping for it. Esn (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not do shopping guides! Comparison lists are intended to show the differences between notable items that have their own articles. They are not a shopping guide. There may well be many other products that are of equivalent quality but which are excluded for lack of notability. This is a widely misunderstood aspect of Wikipedia. I have had to explain to people many times that their non-notable products should not be listed alongside their more notable competitors even though they were comparable in scope and quality. We need to do more to make it clear that we do not offer shopping advice in order to discourage such misunderstandings and to be fair to the very many manufacturers and vendors of perfectly good products that can never have encyclopaedic articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not looking at the software comparison articles; I'm looking at this one. Saying "but what about those articles?" is not a substantive argument, especially to a parent. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I don't think it fails either WP:PROMOTION or WP:NOTCATALOG. Now, if the article went on to make subjective comparisons of different things, or if it listed prices or made it easy to click through to buy a product, then I'd have real concerns; but at the moment it's only listing readily verifiable characteristics of things that exist in the real world. If anything, my concern is that the list is likely to be incomplete - different pencils/leads may be available (or may have been historically available) in different countries... bobrayner (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, what still needs to be added are the historical models on that page linked on the bottom. There should be 5-10 or so, so this won't be a very large or unmanageable list. Esn (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This seems to be well intentioned but it is completely misconceived. I see no encyclopaedic subject here. It is something that the author might wish to publish elsewhere, as it might be useful information, but it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As I see it, these sort of comparison articles are only valid when comparing items that are notable and each have their own articles. Red links routinely get removed from these list and comparison articles. These pencil leads are not notable individually (what is linked is their brand articles) and we should not be comparing non-notable items. By focussing only on brand name products it also serves slightly to promote brand names over generic supplies of pencil lead (although I am not suggesting that the author has done this intentionally). We really don't want thousands of long articles comparing every brand name and generic variety of every type of product from printer inks to fish fingers. Such comparisons belong on consumer information websites not in an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a bit OT, but does "generic" colored lead even exist? I've never seen such a thing. I would say that List of Crayola colored pencil colors comes close to being an article about a specific product on the list. Judging from WP:LISTV, though, not every item on a list has to be wikilinked; actually, it recommends not to. A topic may merit being put into a list, but not merit an article. Esn (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the Crayola leads but I think that is the exception here. The other brands do not have that sort of article (and I am not sure that they should have). As for generic leads, I would be amazed if they are not available somewhere in the World. This is another problem with these comparisons. The details may change with time and location making the list unmaintainable in an accurate state. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no evidence that the comparison that is the topic of this list is notable. The sources used are blogs and company product pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (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.