Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 of the debate was keep expanded article. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popcorn bag

I Prodded; removed by author. Rationale was: "not-notable definition." If you were to make an ordered list of words or phrases that don't require an article, I think this one would place rather high--Fuhghettaboutit 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn definition. nihil 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't really need its own article. Royboycrashfan 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to popcorn since popcorn often comes in a bag. :-) Strong keep, now that the article has been expended, a la soap dispenser (which is also on AfD). The tautology in the first sentence ("A popcorn bag is, as the name implies, a bag from which popcorn is eaten...") hurts though. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Booking563 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We may take it for granted, but this is a verifiable, real item. We may know all we need to know about the subject, but sometime, somewhere, someone might not. We should record what we know about popcorn bags here for posterity and to add it to the sum of human knowledge. youngamerican (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if someone expands the article (perhaps on the history of popcorn bags?); Weak delete as dicdef or Merge to popcorn if left as a stub --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete and redirect to Popcorn. I'm completely baffled by the keep votes above. "Popcorn bag" is completely self-explanatory. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 01:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Popcorn unless there's really much more to say. I doubt there's enough to write about the bags that couldn't be on that page instead. -- Mithent 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now as the article has been expanded. -- Mithent 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would be interested in reading an article on those; who invented them, for example. StuRat 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per StuRat and youngamerican. A popcorn bag isn't simply a bag that holds popcorn; it's a notable invention of the post-microwave era. --Allen 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I expanded the stub a bit to give it context and make it something informative to someone that wanted to know what popcorn used to be served in once upon a time. I will add photos too, if that would help. youngamerican (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I've expanded the section on microwave popcorn bags to discuss the susceptor-driven heat distribution that they pioneered. Ziggurat 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• This hurts my head, but I'm voting to keep expanded article now that its importance has been demonstrated and the relevant patent cited. One tiny little kernel of importance per Ziggurat (and despite youngamerican). Pass the synthetic butter substitute. Barno 01:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Am I supposed to take that personally? heh youngamerican (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I can't beleive I'm voting keep on this, but there you go. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentSomething similar happened on the AfD for cardboard box (AfD) a few months back. youngamerican (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Holy crap. Now I don't feel bad about my keep vote at all. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since expansion it is notable (of sorts). Rockpocket 01:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable in my opinion. With further expansion, it will be a valid article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing in this article that couldn't either be deleted or incorporated into popcorn. Paul 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Barno and PS2pcGAMER. BryanG 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the microwave-type bags are a pretty interesting little piece of technology if you think about it. I'd like to see this be an article but I think it might be better to rename to Popcorn packaging so as to include buckets, foldy boxes, and those Jiffy Pop frying-pan things too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The technology of microwave popcorn bags may be fodder for an article (though in its present incarnation I think it should be merged with popcorn). However, there is nothing notable about popcorn bags of the everyday variety. The entire focus should thus be on the history and technology involved with that topic; the article should not masquerade as a general article on popcorn bags and should be renamed "Microwave popcorn bag technology" or something similar. Think about it this way, would there be any reason to keep if the article was lolipop wrapper? Generic popcorn bags are still the analogue of lolipop wrapper. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to popcorn. And merge the microwave technology into that article as well.--Yannick 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If content is merged, the article must be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution for Wikipedia's license. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate article. dbtfz^talk 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it looks good now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not something I would have thought to write about, but interesting and very informative. The fact that there's at least one patent for a popcorn bag design makes this a notable product to me. Grandmasterka 08:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good info source!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yet another disendorsement for nominating the "non-notable". Who would have guessed that popcorn bags could turn out to be so noteworthy? You live and learn. At least you do if deletionists don't succeed in barring articles about the things you're learning about from Wikipedia. Grace Note 09:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's a bit mean. How do you know this happy state of affairs didn't result from the article being listed for deletion? --kingboyk 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the literal truth in this case. The original article should have been deleted - it was a blatant dicdef - but got improved instead. Ziggurat 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I still think it's marginal, but notable enough. Lankiveil 10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
• Keep as it stands. --kingboyk 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ziggurat. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to popcorn. Still not notable on its own, despite the vast improvement in the article. The best article in the world wouldn't be notable on its own if it were about me. Lord Bob 16:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Subject doesnt warrant its own article, though information is still worth recording TgC 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. Quintillion 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  setting aside the fact that the nom wants it deleted, this is the user's twentieth edit, of which only two have not been to either AfDs or articles on AfD, and one of which was adding a {{stub}} to somebody's userpage. Just pointing out a strangeness. Lord Bob 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• The original article was about one kernel's worth, if that. This is a whole bag full of tasty knowledge now. Was AfD the spur to make it better? We shall never know, but it got better in a jiffy. Keep ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to popcorn per Lord Bob. Clarinetplayer 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is a stretch, folks. Wikipedia's not a dictionary. --Hyphen5 04:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one's saying it is. Read the article. Grandmasterka 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Terence Ong 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The bit on the microwave bag especially is interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an interesting and fairly well written article. Oliver Keenan 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is well written erasing makes no sense Yuckfoo 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm impressed with the treatment of what I'd expected would have been a subject about which very little could have been written. Maxamegalon2000 16:44, 27 March 2006 (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.