Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyester

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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polyester[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DeleteI am aware this is a very important subject. But it is full of original research and the whole page only has 2 references and 4 "cititation needed" tags. That is more "cititation needed" then references. Delete then rewrite without all the original research WOLfan112 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 8. Snotbot t • c » 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is an editing matter. I agree the sourcing is crap — the article needs to be flagged and tagged until somebody gets on the case to fix it. Raise hell on the talk page. But there's no way on the big blue earth that WP is gonna delete a page on polyester on the basis of OR concerns and insufficient footnoting. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The procedure for a "full rewrite eliminating the original research" which you seek is simple: WP:BE BOLD, dive in do it! Start busting it up paragraph by paragraph, replacing unsourced and sketchy material with sourced content. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Topic is immensely notable, one of the most common plastics on the planet earth. The article is also well written except lacking sources. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Subject is definitely notable and the issues brought up by the nominator point to an editing issue, not a deletion issue. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.