Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp

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.

Eversharp

The result was Speedy Keep The nominator has failed to follow the deletion process and there is clearly no consensus to delete per WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a medium for sly advertising, no matter how old the product is. This article is nothing more than SPAM as these pencils are insignificant -- nothing more than one of a myriad of consumer flotsam of the past century that has left no mark on the world, no pun intended. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. First mechanical pencils, and patents still being cited in current patent designs for such items. Rates an extended mention in Petroski's "The Pencil" ISBN 0679734155. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Based on the sources in the article and Edward's vote above, notability is obvious. It's hard to see how an article on a product from the 1910s can be seen as WP:SPAM, especially when that article has a neutral, non-promotional tone. In fact, I'm wondering if this should be speedily kept because this is a "nomination which is so erroneous that it indicates that the nominator has not even read the article in question." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in the book "The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance", and has about 10,900 Google News hits! (true, most of those are ads, but that alone suggests a major company) Abductive (reasoning) 07:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.