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. If anyone actually intends to perform the merge then I can restore the content for them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of menstrual cups[edit]

Environmental impact of menstrual cups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An essay. Does not read like an encyclopedic article (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#ESSAY), and has problems with WP:OR/WP:N. It is almost certainly a student project for a course I was unable to trace, and one where the instructor seems to have failed to explain to this student the difference between encyclopedic topic and an essay, and the policies of no original research and notability. IMHO this is OR essay that fails N. I thought about merger to Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products but the topic seems to detailed to warrant a mention there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, maybe in the form of a paragraph in a section "Examples". There's good stuff in here, but far too much synthesis and OR to stand as it is. Seems a lot of work has gone into assembling a nice spread of references; this would make a high-quality short section in the more general article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although plenty of work has gone into this, the whole is a synthesis and and original research. It gives the false idea that there is a significant Environmental impact of menstrual cups, when in fact no other writer has suggested that. I considered the idea of merging, but most of the content is already in the appropriate articles. The diagrams could be used elsewhere, but they are outside the scope of this debate. Another idea is to transwiki this to Wikiversity, so it can be offered there, but I do not know if they think this is suitable. Original research is accepted on Wikiversity. It would be good if the instructor for the course that made this could filter proposed article topics to make sure they are encyclopedic before students put in effort to write on them. Other topics can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Graeme, interesting discussion (especially its extension at the edu noticeboard [[1]). I accede to your perspective.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what can be salvaged to menstrual cup, then delete - what a strange idea to create a whole separate article for this topic! If there are environmental impacts worth discussing (and good references), then include that information on the menstrual cup page but there is really no need for a separate article. EvMsmile (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2017 (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.