Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airsickness bag


 * 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   snow speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion. Snow as well. WP:NAC  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Airsickness bag

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unsourced Mjpresson (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator, article chock full of unsourced material.Mjpresson (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: No reason to delete the article just because it lacks sources. Tag the bits of the article that need references with tags, or better yet, look up some sources. Ivanvector (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simply being unsourced is not in itself a reason for deletion. Contentious statements can be removed or tagged as requiring references for verification. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with the above comments. Airsickness bags are common and prominent enough to be notable, the article does not have to be deleted simply because it lacks sources. J I P  | Talk 05:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot of the current article belongs in an airsickness bag, but see, , , etc.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 06:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. See also patent 3149771 and its patent history.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. good, delete not good.  Blodance   the   Seeker   07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The question is not whether the article is currently well-written and properly sourced, but whether the subject (airsickness bags) is notable enough to be included in the English Wikipedia. I think the answer to the latter is clearly yes. I have also added a reference where they are covered in some detail. decltype (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Decltype summarizes this well. Clearly a notable device. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.