Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microwave Popcorn 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 merge to Microwave popcorn.  MBisanz  talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Microwave Popcorn Bag

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hopelessly non-neutral essay (result of class project) masquerading as encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge with Microwave popcorn. Definitely not neutral, but has sourced content that the popcorn article lacks and therefore is useful (though need to make sure not to give undue weight to this perspective). Appable (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Since this was a school assignment, perhaps it should be moved back to sandbox, or just have the AFD delayed. But if we just treat this as a new article, it is really original research.  Perhaps it could be transwikied to Wikiversity.  But on this encyclopedia parts can be merged to perfluorocarbons. Most of the content would be also undue or original research for Microwave popcorn. Unless someone has actually written about disposal hazards of Microwave Popcorn Bag, then the environmental aspects are all OR. The bag is probably a notable topic in itself, but this page hardly talks about it. PS the Chemistry Project is keeping an eye on this class's work, so even without this AFD it would have been merged/redirected somewhere anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per, chop it up and merge various bits to relevant articles, but take care not to unbalance the targets. As a whole this article is a synthesis of a variety of unrelated sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. Most of it looks like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Looks like there are some WP:MEDRS sources in there though, so some of the content may be usable in various articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2016 (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.