Deletion of List of mechanical colored pencils and leads

Comment: I don't think it fails either  or . Now, if the article went on to make subjective comparisons of different things, or if it listed prices or made it easy to click through to buy a product, then I'd have real concerns; but at the moment it's only listing readily |verifiable characteristics of things that exist in the real world. If anything, my concern is that the list is likely to be incomplete - different pencils/leads may be available (or may have been historically available) in different countries
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION||WP:NOTCATALOG||WP:V)

Comment: The  claim in the nomination doesn't really deserve much discussion given that it's about style, not subject matter, and this list cannot reasonably be read as promotional material (and if it did, that would be an issue for cleanup, not deletion).   is also not applicable, as it only says don't list sales prices.  Which this list doesn't (and if it did, that would be an issue for cleanup, not deletion).  It doesn't say anything about not listing or comparing commercial products, which is quite common on Wikipedia and well-tested by consensus.  So it's purely a question of whether it's appropriate to list and compare examples of ''this'' particular product, which neither of the deletion !voters have actually discussed.  Acronyms are not arguments (unless  existed).My concern is that none of these models apparently merit their own articles, and apparently only half of the brands of the models included are notable, so the notability of this list's entries gets rather attenuated.  There is a paragraph at Mechanical pencils#Pigments that summarizes the available products and who makes them, so I wonder why that (whether as is or if somewhat expanded) is not sufficient detail to cover the subtopic.  Particularly since I don't see a single reliable source in the list that is about the topic as a whole (I am skeptical that the website "Dave's Mechanical Pencils" counts).  Instead, it's mostly cited to company pages.  And so aside from concerns about the notability of the list's topic and entries, and aside from concern about going into unnecessary detail, there is also the concern that I can't tell why these colored pencil models were listed and compared and not others.  If I don't see adequate answers to these questions, then I would support deletion.  If the editors of mechanical pencil still want to include this table in that article, however, that is a matter for discussion on that article's talk page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION||WP:NOTCATALOG||WP:NOTMECHANICALCOLOREDPENCILLIST)

Comment: per . This is not what Wikipedia is for, it may be appropriate for |some other website but it doesn't belong here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCATALOG||WP:OUT)