Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Paper Sizes

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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J Paper Sizes

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

I am unable to locate any independent sources that discuss this paper series. The single source referenced in the article, controlled by the inventor of this product,^{*see AJHingston's comment below for perspective on this description of the subject*} references this Wikipedia article almost as if the article was created by the inventor. PROD was contested by author. VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. To describe this as a product is, I suggest, potentially misleading. It is a set of measurements for reducing standard cut paper in ISO (A series) sizes (ie the way paper is normally sold in most of the world except the USA) to the proportions of the golden ratio. That is something the artist would do themselves just as they might cut it into any other shape. There is nothing wrong with that as the subject of an article and actually nothing wrong with the person who has come up with the table contributing to it, provided that it is already notable, including the name. We would expect it to have been written about in detail, adopted by others, etc if it were notable. The fact that other artists have used the golden ratio for centuries does not help here. --AJHingston (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have an excellent point that the subject of this article is not best described as a "product," and anyone !voting here should take your observations into consideration. VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also suspected the author created this page to give a sense of credibility to this subject. Seeing it linked within minutes of creation on the author's blog supports this hypothesis. I did a good faith search for independent sources, and found none. I even left the author a note on his talk page offering help to improve the article if he could provide such sources, and nothing was forthcoming. AstroCog (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (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.