Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writing paper

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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing paper

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

Two-year-old unsourced stub with no useful content, created by a paper-company guy. No content worth keeping, nor evidence of a real topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it looks like there's no useful content to merge. This unsourced stub is redundant to paper, notebook, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a specialized type of paper in the same way that newsprint is, and manufacturing it is the way lots of people earn their living. The complete idiot's guide to etiquette‎ (this link) explains: "Most people should own three kinds of personal stationery: formal writing paper (which can be engraved or plain), personal business stationery, and personal notepaper.... Do not substitute informal writing paper when formal writing paper is called for." This is an encyclopedic and specialized topic, and many more references can be found: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Eastmain (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're available to turn it into an article, I'll withdraw my deletion nomination; but as it is, it has no redeeming value. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. It's a worthwhile encyclopedic topic despite the article's current shortcomings.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding a good source for this topic takes just a few seconds. See Letter writing as a social practice, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad article on legit topic, needs cleanup/improvement. Encylopedias should be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BEFORE; I agree with Colonel Warden and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and source this perhaps most notable item in history, after the "invention of fire". From the earliest forms of papyrus or sheepskin or vellum or parchment to rag and linen etc., cultures have depended on "paper" in order to share ideas and save histories. That the article is currently a little stub is no problem when one considers the WP:POTENTIAL of an article that is such an essential invention so instrumental in the communication of ideas and commerce throughout history [1], [2], [3]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there's definite potential for an article here. Maybe even a good one. It needs improvement (though some has been done already), but I see it's been flagged for rescue (and this usually works), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - this seems like a legitimate topic, and some references already appear to have been included/pointed out. I feel that it should be kept, and should be expanded upon. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is writing paper not notable? The fact that the article is unsourced does not necessarily imply that no reliable sources exist on writing paper itself. How foolish to ask for its deletion! --Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (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.