Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disposable


 * 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 nominator withdrew his nomination Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disposable

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

wp:NOTADICTIONARY KDS4444 (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why delete this article?  It has been around for about ten years and has been recently improved.  Of course more improvement and citation is needed.  Keep the article.Pkgx (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to disposable product (which redirects to the article). Clearly a notable topic, with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Google Scholar and Google Books searches provide specific examples, among other searches. Simply removing the minor amount of dicdef content will suffice, rather than blanket deletion. North America1000 08:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

❌ KDS4444 (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment...Or maybe "disposable" is merely a word that is being defined, and does not, by itself, warrant an encyclopedia entry...(?) As far as I know, "length of time it has been around" is one of the arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, as is "it's clearly notable".  Having said this, I have no objection to moving of the namespace to disposable product, and so will withdraw this nomination:


 * 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.