Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel toilet paper folding


 * 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 per WP:SNOW -- &oelig; &trade; 14:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hotel toilet paper folding

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

What the... HOTEL TOILET PAPER FOLDING? What's gotten into this wiki? BwburkeLetsPlays (talk&#124;contribs) 17:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Sumbuddi (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. I'm as surprised as you are, but this seems to be fairly well referenced; some of the sources given are unreliable or primary sources, but there are quite a few legitimate ones as well.  I can't think of any other article where these details would fit. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As the nom hasn't cited a single reason as to WHY this should be deleted. Ignoring that, the article is fine and has many real-world cites to meet general notability.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason given for deletion. Kuru   (talk)  18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into toilet paper. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have an article about it. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fold into toilet paper? Sumbuddi (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow keep no reason for deletion only a WTF? comment. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No sound rationale for deletion so far. The practice exists, the practice can be referenced (and the "hospitality industry", indeed, takes it seriously). Merging upward is not a good choice (you will have to either cut the whole story to one line, or load the target article with a lengthy and WP:UNDUE text on a fringe issue). "What happened to this wiki"? It thrives owing to unusual articles. East of Borschov 07:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep An excellent article - kudos to the author. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, the title invokes in me a "what the..." response in me too. However, the sourcing indicates that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources which substantiates this as an article topic. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep several reliable sources show notability. Also to the nominator: "WTF?!" is not a valid rationale for deletion. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   spill the beans 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason given to delete this. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you have the right to delete it.  See WP:IDONTLIKEIT   D r e a m Focus  10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep' Article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG for this strange topic. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  15:11, 4 November 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.