Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packages being hard to open

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 the rewritten article. Arkyan • (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Packages being hard to open

Packages being hard to open (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The page isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. It provides no real information, or anything. δσώпҹ (talk)(cont) 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The title of the page gives nearly as much information as the page itself. Think of all the articles that might pop up if this were considered encyclopedic content...Cans being hard to open, Car doors getting stuck in the cold, Ice being hard to walk on...Someguy1221 08:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. BTLizard 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agreeing with Someguy1221, lol Think outside the box 12:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It almost qualifies as patent nonsense in terms of subject matter. Too bad, it could have been speedied if that were obvious. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Adds absolutely no good info Corpx 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Tamper resistance if anybody really feels like it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Having taken a look at the page history, it seems that it was originally located at Wrap rage, with lots more information, content, and slightly better sourcing. It was moved to the Packages being hard to open title unilaterally with zero discussion by User:Salad Days for no apparent reason. Subsquent to that a great deal of the article content vanished into thin air, and a prod was removed for no apparent reason. I have reverted the move, putting the article back at the more appropriate title of Wrap rage and have restored the removed content. As it stands the article is probably still deletion-worthy, but it certianly is in better shape than it was when it was nominated for deletion. Wrap rage as a concept may well be notable, but the article definately still needs work and notability is marginal at best. Still, I would encourage those who have voiced support for deletion to re-visit the article as the current version is better than the version you most likely looked at. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • From this point forward, the discussion is regarding the article Wrap rage. Sancho (Review me) 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to packaging, the phenomenon is worth mentioning but I doubt there's more than a paragraph worth to write without original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be a term used in ergonomy. - I have found this, for example.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ioannes. Far lower recommendation: merge per SanchoNight Gyr, but much prefer keep. Tomertalk 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What? :-) I didn't say merge, I was just making it clear that ONUnicorn had moved the page and the article under discussion had changed locations. Sancho (Review me) 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sheesh, my bad, sorry.  :-D Tomertalk 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a very inadequate article, but on a notable topic. The term does appear to be used, and there is a great eal more to be said. DGG
  • Keep, Consumer Reports has been giving out its "Oyster Awards" for several years now[1]. This year they even reviewed tools especially made for opening tamper-resistant packages. I'm not sure what a better term is, but I know the current name is atrocious (and is not supported as a "name" by the article Ioannes linked to). --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The "wrap rage" article is sufficiently well-sourced to stay. - Orphic 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep--Knife Knut 00:00, 9 May 2007 (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.