Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retractable pen

	Articles for deletion/Pen clicking
	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 keep. Per general consensus and Dream Focus's comment. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retractable pen

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

A derailed past AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pen clicking (2nd nomination)), where the same article on pen clicking was salvaged by renaming it to a notable topic, but without changing its content.

The article title here is notable. However the article content, such as it is, is still about the trival and non-notable act of pen clicking. There's nothing substantial here about pens that have retractable nibs.

Such pens are, incidentally, pre-war - in an attempt to make non-leaking fountain pens (as are still available). The Frawley Pen Company claim - just about the only factoid in this article that's actually about retractable pens - might be correct for Frawley pens, it might even have primacy for post-war ballpoints, but it's not true for pens in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as said, the article title is notable, and the main problem is the lack of reliable, in depth information about it, I'm not sure if a deletion discussion is the appropriate debate, as much as decision to Merge or redirect to Ballpoint Pen. That said, I do agree that, once all the copious amounts of Original Research/Synthesis and inappropriate sources were removed, there really isn't enough in the way of actual sourced information to sustain its own article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballpoint pen. Everybody knows there are two types of ballpoint pens, retractable and non-retractable. One article can cover both very well. I think "Pen clicking" would be better if merged with "Annoying habits" or some such. Borock (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what about retractable pens that aren't ballpoints? There's a topic here, the problem is that there isn't an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that it is about a type of ballpoint pen.Borock (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title is "retractable pen" – which I suppose excludes mechanical pencils, but it does cover any ink-based writing implement with a retractable nib, thus the fountain pens too. The content is such crap that it means nothing beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article we are talking about starts out: "A retractable pen is a type of ballpoint pen..." Maybe the title should be "Retractable ballpoint pen." Borock (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of stubs all over Wikipedia, it does not appear to be a reason for deleting an article. It is an engineered object, and it could have a much better article on its own. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Specifically to Ballpoint pen#Types of ballpoint pens, where there is half a sentence on that. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have Adventures in Stationery now and, checking it, find that it has more material about the topic. And there's plenty more out there such as this interesting article in Quill and Pad about stylish retractable fountain pens. The Vanishing Point is a wonderful name for this technology and, being made of carbon fibre, seems to be the 21st century state-of-the-art in writing — it must be mine! The nomination doesn't seem to provide any reason to delete (see speedy keep) and so the topic should be kept for more work per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine if you actually have some genuine sources to add some legit info to the article. But the majority of that content that you just "restored" was either completely unsourced OR, based off of unnotable or unreliable sources, or statements that actually are not reflected in the supposed sources that they are claiming to be drawn from. There is an actual reason why most of it was removed in the first place, so you may have actually wanted to look into some of that info before you restored it haphazardly.75.82.28.71 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have that too, but it gives me more enthusiasm that publishers are still buying than it ever enlightened me on stationery history. There are much better books.

It's not in doubt that the topic works – however there's nothing at this article, other than an implication that the only retractable pens are ballpoints and a claim by the Frawley company long after the Biro brothers did it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these pens have been part of our lives for many years. Yes we have Pen, but this certainly deserves it's own article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom admits the topic is notable, saying "The article title here is notable." Replace "article title" with "article topic" and then read WP:NOTE which says Notability is about topic not content. Content issues are worked out by way of other editing mechanisms. AfD is not cleanup etc.. I think the article is OK, while a little unbalanced towards pen clicking there is nothing inherently wrong which can't be fixed. -- GreenC 17:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why so much valid referenced information was ever removed to begin with. [1] This article was fine when it was just about the well covered pen clicking habit. Now the article has been renamed to be about something else, and most of the well sourced content has been removed. Dream Focus 23:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the creator of the article

The article was in trouble, so as the creator I had to make a decision at the last AFD to morph the article focus in order to give it a stronger argument for existing. I haven't checked in for a while so have no opinion on the content others have deleted. If this becomes a theoterical discussion where nobody actually searches for sources and dumps them in, while just saying "AFD is not for cleanup" to discredit the nomination, then that is not cool. I would consider that a form of slactivist victory that does nothing for noone. Either this article actually gets improved by the many Keepers, or perhaps it really should be nuked...alas...for I have put much work into it.

Also, it could be the sister article to Mechanical pencil.--Coin945 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2015 (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.