Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convenience package


 * 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, and hope User:Makyen applies some of that research. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Convenience package

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested. Entire article is WP:OR, sources have been added but they are all primary. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not OR, it's the collection of information. It could be better sourced, from such places as Consumer Reports.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reasons. Procedural: It does not appear to fit any category in WP:DEL-REASON.  The closest appears to be "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", but it is clear that there have not been "thorough attempts to find reliable sources". Thus, this article does not fall in any category of item in the deletion policy.
 * It actually appears that the primary issue with the article is that there has been little attempt to find reliable sources. A Google search for "Convenience package" returns 354,000 hits. Most of the hits on the first page of 100 appear to support the information in the article. However, most of those appear to be primary sources.  I have added some references to the article of a sampling of the first several hits which directly support the specific facts in the article. As  mentioned, and Guy implied, I could have used better, secondary sources by filtering the Google search further.  That doesn't mean that it can't be done. I should point out that primary sources are acceptable for specific facts (WP:WPNOTRS), which is how they are used in this instance. Secondary sources are, of course, still preferred. To be honest, I was in a bit of a hurry; not a good excuse, but reality. I knew that I could get references for the specific facts from primary sources, or whatever sources I would find first and did not take the extra time on that day to search for secondary sources.  It would not be that difficult to obtain secondary sources for these facts, should anyone choose to do so. For instance, a Google search for '"Convenience package" review' returns about 436,000 results.
 * The article may, or may not, have been written based on WP:OR. It is certainly slanted towards how "Convenience package" is used in the automotive industry. This may indicate that it was written based on OR.  It does not mean that the article can not be changed based on information found upon actually making "thorough attempts to find reliable sources".
 * My actual vote is improve. Having spent a bit more time looking for reliable sources, I find that the article's current state is really just something upon which a better article could be built to include how "Convenience packaging" is used in areas other than just the automotive industry.  It is now clear to me that idea of a "Convenience package" and "Convenience packaging" have been around for a long time.  Some examples: A book was written on The Effect of Convenience Packaging on the Malt Beverage Industry, 1947-1969 which was sufficiently important that it was in the bibliography of the US Code of Federal Regulations.  There was sufficient concern over banning "Convenience packages" in 1973 that the first issue of the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science contained an article titled "Convenience-package banning: Economic and environmental implications".  In addition, a definition for "Convenience package", wrt. some drugs, has been written into Illinois law.
 * Deleting the article because none of us have put out the effort to find reliable sources for it, when reliable sources clearly exist, is not the right solution. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * References


 * 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.