Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquapasto

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 redirect to Watercolor painting#Transparency. A consensus to redirect has emerged. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge at this point. Just Chilling (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapasto[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Dic-def. There must be some other article to move this one line sub-stub into. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or notability. hard to take one line page seriously. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles start out as stubs. If they weren't taken seriously, which means looking for sources before coming to an opinion, then we would have a pretty empty encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most hard drug users start out by smoking pot, which is not the same thing as saying that smoking pot inevitably leads to using hard drugs. I haven't actuallu counted, but I would guess that the vast majority of stubs have been stubs since they were created, so an article's stub-ness doesn't tell us anything about its capacity to be grown into an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST the quality of an article doesn't influence the notability of a topic.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree that there probably is some art-related page to which this could be redirected. William2001^(talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Exists and is commercially available from various suppliers. Perhaps this is known under vastly different names in other countries making it difficult to find sources? I would like to see this article expanded with information about ingredients, origin, application examples etc., but for as long as it remains so short and unreferenced, it should just be redirected to watercolour as a redirect with possibilities. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that Aquapasto exists and is available. However, we cannot just have any commercial products on Wikipedia. I cannot find any significant coverage on this product. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 19:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the results of the Google Books search automatically linked by the nomination? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a stub, not a dictionary definition – see WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference. There are plenty of sources out there, if needed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them. This article has been in this state for many years. Also, see this for the back story of articles created by the same now-banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be desirable for them to be added (even if only in "raw" form for a start), because this would establish notability per WP:GNG. But per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST the (lack of) quality of an article should not have an influence on the question if it is notable.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a brand name for a product by Winsor & Newton. Existence of a named consumer product is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that this is a brand name of Winsor & Newton, because I find this name also being used by other suppliers internationally? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find any number of places that sell Elmer's-brand glue, which has no bearing on "Elmer's" being a brand name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that another company, Schminke, sells a product called "AQUA-pasto medium", [1] while the W&N product is called "Aquapasto". [2]. From the descriptions, they appear to perform the same function. There is no indication of trademarking on the W&N product's tube. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to support notability. Barca (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, Matthiaspaul, Phil Bridger, Reywas92, what do you think about Watercolor_painting#Transparency as a target for a redirect? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suggested the possibility of a redirect already (for as long as nobody wants to write more about the topic).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2019 (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.