Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discreet packaging

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discreet packaging

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

None of the article's four sources show notability. Three are just company websites that use the term discreet packaging. The fourth, a satirical blog about a fictional town, alludes to the (real) "brown paper bag" phenomenon. The article is largely original research as a consequence.

BEFORE searches show all kinds of uses of the term discreet packaging but no analyse or coverage more than in passing. Many of the top searches are "news" articles cloned from company press releases about sex toy products. But the term is not restricted to sex toys: it applies to video games and vapes and abortion pills. I have not, however, found anything that contributes to notability. — Bilorv (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and United Kingdom. — Bilorv (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean it's a term, but beyond a DICDEF, we don't need a whole article about it. I only find the routine mentions on various sites selling stuff, but not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scarfolk Council is um… not a reliable source. Or even a source. It’s a work of fiction. The rest of the page is just a dictionary definition sourced to mundane uses of the term, treating them as inherently notable just for existing. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And why not merge to packaging? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there’s no valid sources? Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning above – it is a notable term (which I didn't realise was UK-specific before this), but this is not Wiktionary. Would also support a merge to packaging. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT Retinalsummer (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2022 (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.