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. Very close between keep and merge but the keep arguments are slightly stronger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA pencil[edit]

IKEA pencil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable or important Wrightie99 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC) This is just not a notable subject, there is a citation missing but I'm sorry but a Wikipedia does not need a fraudulent article on an obscene pencil made by a Swedish furniture store! Wrightie99 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is happening with the stuff above, but I strongly disagree with IKEA pencils being non-notable; they are a common item, very iconic, and the article has enough information to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:PRODUCT states that a product (which this is, kinda) should be listed separately if the maker's article is 'unwieldy' – IKEA is quite long and I would classify it as 'unwieldy'.

It suits WP:GNG because:

"Significant coverage" – Y News articles, primary sources, etc can all be found on this topic

"Reliable" – Y Many of the sources are reliable

"Sources" – Y

"Independent of the subject" – Y Primary and secondary sources are all available

"Presumed" – Y The history and breadth of resources warrant this article being kept.

I have also found a source for the 'citation needed' which I will add to the article now. – Hshook (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning to delete. Two articles referenced are essentially duplicate (i.e., that an agency was surprisingly found to use the product). The third talks more about a work of art using the subject. This does not seem to be sufficient coverage to show notability for a pencil provided at a store.--Rpclod (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to IKEA (but preferably not): this article is really just a stand-alone trivia section, which are to be avoided. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - strangely, these pencils do have quite a cult following and coverage as shown here [1], [2], [3]; however I don't believe this accounts for the required significant coverage. Most of the stories are related to the surgeons liking them as reported by the British Medical Journal (which was then re-reported). So we really have a handful of stories and it's insufficient for an encyclopedic entry, but can be a paragraph in the IKEA article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not quite sure why the nom has such apparently personal feelings about the article ~ "fraudulent", "obscene"? c'mon now ~ but i believe that the thing has sufficient coverage in reliable and significant sources (Time, Toronto Star to show that, however odd it may be, it has gained enough attention that coverage is warranted. I cannot see a lot of development potential (though it'd be cool to be proven wrong), but that's no reason to delete it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The writing isn't all that elegant, but form follows function, I suppose. It would be good if the article weren't written so defensively -- with everything there cobbled from sources to defend against AfD and instead actually synthesized more naturally -- but that's kvetching about style. The pet rock gets an article, and the IKEA meatball probably does, too. Importance isn't part of notability, I'm afraid. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per below: It makes more sense and is more useful to merge/redirect anyway, since it's doubtful that a person will always hit the magic formula of "IKEA pencil" if that's what she is searching for. The information will serve readers better at the parent article. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [4], [5], [6]. An option is to merge to IKEA. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - After reconsidering, I think the best course of action would be to merge the article with Ikea. Maybe create section for this notable, important pencil in the Ikea article. For clarity's sake, this !vote was added by the nominator here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Weak keep For me, the notability of this article lives and dies on its third paragraph: i.e., demonstrating that there is a sufficiently notable level of meme or subculture surrounding the stealing and re-purposing of the pencils; the rest (design, number stolen, etc.) is just padding, and wouldn't be enough for an article without the third paragraph. Personally, I think the two examples I see in the article to date – someone building a chair, and surgeons using them – are weak. But a Google-search shows that there is some low-level Facebook and Buzzfeed type of love for IKEA pencil larceny and repurposing out there, so I'd say it probably does enough to meet WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 14 June 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.