Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninon

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. Consensus is clear. Furthermore, the nominator is admonished to develop a better understanding of the relationship between speedy deletion, PROD, and AfD, and to be more careful in making assertions about the actions of other editors with respect to the use of these. BD2412 T 01:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ninon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is a hoax. I PRODDED but User:GB fan deprodded, so I apologise for wasting good faith editors time on this. Roxy the sycamore. wooF 11:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy did not PROD the article. They added a speedy deletion tag with the rationale "Unreliable source, not WP:RS". I removed it because that is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. ~ GB fan 11:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bull shit. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, can you please explain what part of my statement is "Bull shit"? Is it that you didn't add a speedy deletion tag with this edit that had an edit summary saying "Requesting speedy deletion with rationale "Unreliable source, not WP:RS"."? Or is it that I didn't remove that speedy deletion tag in this edit with an edit summary saying "decline speedy delete, not a valid speedy deletion criterion"? Both of those diffs agree with my statement. No where in the history of this article is there any edit where you added a PROD or that I removed one. ~ GB fan 13:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog, just wondering if you could explain what is bull shit about my statement. ~ GB fan 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: It is apparent in the history of this article that User:GB fan is correct. This article was never PRODded. After speedy deletion was declined, nothing prevented you from adding a PROD tag. Removal of the former does nothing to preclude the latter. There was therefore no need for, as you have said, "wasting good faith editors time on this". BD2412 T 01:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article does not appear to be a hoax. As the sources at Google Books indicate, ninon is an actual type of fabric. Admittedly, I don't know enough about fabric to know whether the article accurately describes this fabric, and the main source cited has been removed from the article for being a "security risk" website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look harder, perhaps read one of your search results. The first mention of the word is from 1911. There is no etymology at all. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that has to do with requesting deletion. If the word was first mentioned in 1911, that means the fabric has been around for a while. This article doesn't discuss the etymology of the word, but I wouldn't expect it to because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In case anyone is interested, though, merriam-webster.com says the etymology is "probably from French Ninon, nickname for Anne", and the American Heritage Dictionary says exactly the same: "Prob. < Fr. Ninon, nickname for Anne." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Merriam Webster say 1911? with a very dodgy ref? Can anybody find a pic of this fabric, anything to show that it exists as an entity, a thing, perhaps a roll or garment made with it. Not very likely for something that doesn't exist. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Merriam-Webster does say the first known use was in 1911. [1] Do you think they're lying about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1911 eh. Funny that. Our article, such as it is, says that this alleged fabric is made from filament yarns. For the record, filament yarns weren't invented then. No I dont think thry're lying about it, they're just hopeless on this subject, like many of us. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Roxy, I don't know why you're being so aggressively wrong, but in addition to appearing in various print books, here's some pictures 1911, 1915, 1937 1950s, 1956, probably 1970s, current. And here's a sample of usage (including as voile Ninon) before 1911, because dictionaries are a lagging indicator: 1910 (quoted), 1907, 1904. This source suggests that 1904 is the first attested use, but here's 1903 and 1901. Not saying that it needs to be kept as an article, though -- merge to list would be a perfectly reasonable option. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of Non RS examples. You should be ashamed that you think we could hang a totally dubious article on the quality of those truly awful refs. I'm very dissappointed with everybody's Due Diligence work before commenting here. Oh well. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the google books results. All of the articles in this category are badly sourced, so there is no better article for re-direction (see Voile and Sheer fabric). SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep" per WP:HEY.RV (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Weak keep Not sure if this is a hoax, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV. Which reliable source has as much as a paragraph about this? Please ping me if one exists so I can review it and reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Update: I was pinged with a source on my talkpage. I could only see a snippet view here, but it does suggest the topic is not a hoax and may be notable. Ping me with more sources and I will revise more vote further if they seem sufficient. Full view would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my vote to weak keep, the sources I was given on talk suggest this is a topic that is likely notable. It seems like a more encyclopedic topic than most fictional characters that have been giving me a headache those past few years. This is something that one would expect to find in a real, old-school pedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no comment on the fate of this article, but I just want to add on that's it certainly is a real thing, and not a hoax. There are some book samples given here ([2]), and I obtained a full copy of the Pearson Textiles book, which places it as a "plain weave" and "lightweight and sheer" fabric comparable to Georgette, Voile, Organza, and Organdy. The book has about two paragraphs of description in total. — Goszei (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in recognition of the improvement to the article that has taken place during this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2021 (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.