Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pen clicking (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (drawl)  @ 15:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Retractable pen (article renamed from Pen clicking)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. It's a MacGuffin in a Bond film and an annoying habit in cow-orkers. Is there anything more to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete with the possibility of Selective Merging - I've spent about a year, off and on, with this article, trying to clean it up, and I'm afraid that its starting to look to the point that its not a topic that can sustain its own article. As I stated on the Talk page, back when I announced my intent to try to fix the page, it was a bloated mess at first, where there were dozens of "sources", but when looking at them, nearly all of them were just flat out unreliable sources, or extremely trivial mentions of the phrase, to the point where it looked like somebody just googled the phrase "pen clicking", and created a list of times it was used somewhere. As it stands, after cleaning those out, there are very few sources that actually give any credence to the idea that "pen clicking" as a concept is at all notable on its own. The vast majority of the remaining sources mention it completely tangentially, and don't spend any time talking specifically about the idea of pen clicking itself (IE, listing it, among other things, as a bad habit or an example of fidgeting, or an article/book about a completely different subject that just happens to mention that someone clicked a pen). There is only really one source that talks specifically about the concept of "pen clicking" in any sort of depth that looks to be reliable (the one from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and even that one is suspect, as most of the article is just quoting a seemingly unnotable blogger's post, and then a brief segment where an actual scientist states that this will never be researched. I think that some of the article could possibly be salvaged to be merged into other articles though. The two lead in paragraphs about the history of click pens could potentially be useful to merge with the pen article. And perhaps some of the sources that talk about bad habits in general could be useful as sources for the article on fidgeting. But as a whole, there are just not enough sources that talk in depth about the concept of "pen clicking" as a thing on its own that shows notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep (note I was the creator): The available sources haven't yet been utilized. See the Google Scholar search for many great sources on the application and design of clickable pens, as well as pen clicking (. Could also restructure page into Retractable pen which ATM redirects to "pen clicking",--Coin945 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retractable pens would be a notable article on a piece of stationery. That's different to the extremely narrow act of recreationally clicking them. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, there is more to it. For example, there are multiple books about dog-training which suggest using pen clicks as a sound cue, e.g. The Thinking Dog: Crossover to Clicker Training.  That's just a quick look.  There's a good book on my reading list — Adventures in Stationery: A Journey Through Your Pencil Case... Andrew (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment (And note, I'm the same IP as the Delete vote above, just on a different computer) The thing is, clicker training for dogs does not necessarily need to use a pen's click.  Yes, it CAN, but anything that produces a clicking sound can.  They even make specialty noise makers specifically for the purpose.  Unless this book, or any other, discusses the use of pen clicking specifically in depth, it falls in the same line as the above mentioned "annoying habit/fidgeting" sources.  As just an example, among many others, of something that produces noise, without any specific significance dedicated to show why it has any wider notability.  In fact, after looking into a number of books on the subject, including the one you specifically brought up, that is exactly the case.  The only time pen clicking is mentioned is in a list of numerous other everyday, household items that can be used in lieu of a specialty clicker.  No importance or notability is given to a pen click in specific, and it only appears in this book (and several others) only as a single mention in a wide list of other objects.  (As seen here)
 * Really, Andy brought up a good point in his response to Coin945. This article is not about retractable pens in general, which could very conceivably be created as a perfectly fine article.  It is entirely about the concept of the very specific and narrow act of opening and closing that type of pen.  So, when looking at sources, such as the Adventures in Stationery: A Journey Through Your Pencil Case you mentioned, we really need to ask ourselves, do any of them assign enough specific importance to the actual act of opening/closing a pen that gives it notability that is separate from the pen itself?75.82.28.71 (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just one of an endless cavalcade of nervous habits, which, if clinically significant, would be mentioned in an article on nervous habits and not in a free standing article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Note I have retructured the article around retractable pens, with pen clicking being a subsection at the bottom. Please add sources to make this now-notable article awesome. :)--Coin945 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that sucks. Instead of a deletable irrelevant article, we now have an unassailable topic filled with no content at all and a chunk of pointless filler on a different and non-notable topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there's one way to solve that problem: let's go find those sources and hit the edit button! :D--Coin945 (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete The removal of seven rambling paragraphs on habitual pen clicking might be regarded as a relief, but as to what is left - one hardly knows where to begin Even if the points raised above were to be fixed, the article would still be of little encyclopaedic value. The deletion of this article would be of no loss to the project. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Quote from 'history' section: "The origin of the retractable pen is controversial".  Therefore, no evidence that either stated origin is, in fact, correct.
 * 2) The inclusion of an illustration showing a pen being clicked is just insulting the reader's intelligence (It's hardly surprising that the uploader does not want the image moved to commons).
 * 3) 'How a retractable pen works' doesn't actually provide much of a clue as to how the wretched thing works.  Quote: "The spring creates tension with the ballpoint of the pen, allowing it to stay out."'  But what exactly causes it to stay out.  Certainly not the spring because that would instantly cause it to retract if it were not for some mysterious mechanism (as far as the explanation goes) that prevents it.
 * 4) Quote from 'Habitual pen clicking' section: "In its normal use, the button is only pressed when someone wants the nib of the pen to be exposed ..."  I know of no retractable pen that has a 'nib'.  I know of plenty that have either a ball point or roller ball point.
 * 5) The article is a shameless plug for Pilot® pens mentioned by name in both the text and the illustration caption.
 * The nib is the bit of the pen that sticks out pf gthe top when you press the button.--Coin945 (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. The only pens that have 'nibs' are the ones that you either repeatedly dip in ink or fill from a bottle of ink.  Pens of the type described in the article do not have nibs.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is such a trivial point anyway but here is a Google Search of "Retractable pen" and "nib". It is being used as the second entry in the dictionary link you posted - as the tip of the pen. (btw if you think there is too much Pilot content - an unintended consequence mind you - then you can easily add other content to balance it out yourself). --Coin945 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability to this frivolous article.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Silly thou the article may sound at first impression, there appears to be sufficient material.  DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The presence of a lot of material is insufficient qualification to make an article notable. I could write a vey long article about myself, but I doubt that the abundance of material would prevent it from being deleted as wholly un-notable within minutes. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

'''May I please remind voters that the article has been restructured as "retractable pen", with "pen clicking" being a subsection. Note the nominator said ''Retractable pens would be a notable article on a piece of stationery. That's different to the extremely narrow act of recreationally clicking them. '.--Coin945 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, still delete, as being an article with no substantial coverage of relevance to what is now the claimed topic. Also see WP:TNT. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My vote remains at Delete as well. I think you misunderstand what was meant by the nominator's comment.  Saying that its possible to create a notable article on retractable pens does not mean that changing the title of the existing article to "Retractable Pen" automatically fixes all the problems with the article.  In addition, the actual reworked version of the article is still unacceptible, as it relies entirely on a couple of sources which, are not only suspect as far as reliability goes, have only brief, one-sentence mentions of retractable pens.  So yes, while the subject of retractable pens could potentially be created as a decent article (though I'm begining to have my doubts, as I look around for actual in-depth sources on the supposed new topic), the current page would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up to even begin to approach that possibility.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is not a Featured article, no. But it is a valid stub. Here at AFD we judge articles based on their potential, not their current state. And instead of bickering about it, we can always be WP:BOLD and actually hit the edit button. :P--Coin945 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2014 (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.