Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single use foodservice packaging

Single use foodservice packaging

Contested prod. Essay. Was also tagged {{db-spam}}, but that has little chance of success. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not spam, but clearly an essay. Delete. Comes off as a bit of a coat rack for environmental concerns thereunto pertaining. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay/rant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The current article is poorly written, but I believe an article on the topic, either at Single use foodservice packaging or at Foodservice packaging, is most likely appropriate. [1] It seems that a lot of research and testing goes into foodservice packaging [2], and there are even awards for foodservice packaging. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have a really awesome, NPOV and well-sourced article at Packaging and labeling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think it's the same topic. From what I understand, the article we are discussing here is more about the wrapper around your Big Mac, or the styrofoam plates they give you at the mall's food court. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might have started with an essay-style tone but this is definitely viable as a WP article. Restaurant packaging is just part of daily life, and only a portion of the article is about environmental issues; it's mostly cost and sanitary reasons. Remember that Wikipedia is not the New Yorker; the nuts and bolts of restaurant management is a perfectly fine topic here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author. I made some changes (deleted some portions) and added more content on the history of single use foodservice packaging and the materials used. I left a mark on the page to please hold and reconsider, but it was removed for some reason. If you able to, please consider reviewing the article again. I would really like to get this right. Thank you for your time and comments. Hrundle (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]