Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Recycling Association

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Recycling Association

Electronic Recycling Association (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)

Company is notable for one event only which was that an article was written about it in the Vancouver Sun in 2013, which was about as far as the story went also (the incident went to court and ERA were not found liable) - this can be discounted due to WP:ILLCON. Can only find press releases otherwise for all information present in the article (if you'd like to see my full review of the current sources, it can be found on the talk page). There is no widespread coverage outside the press releases the company seems to endlessly pump out. A version with better sourcing (with no press releases) can be found here and I don't believe the article can be expanded further than that. Nikthestunned 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this topic. One reason that nikthestunned is also agreed that one revision of this page is ok. Second reason is that I did full rewrite of this page but he had editwar with me and page was locked. He said he had concern with every reference in the article in his long list of concerns. In same section I have given answer to every concern he had. There were too many concerns in one list and I had to answer them all so that debate became too long. When his revision was restored he stopped replying to my concerns and stopped participating on talkpage. I made one attempt with AdventurousMe to do create consensus and do mutual edit. We made some compromise I agreed with AdventurousME's cut back and he also helped me to make it much neutral. So after that I have proposed my draft and cutback data to make compromise consensus edit. Nikthestunned did not participate. It is disruptive that he wishes to delete everything, every discussion and every edit many other users have made with much effort in the last month. See the talkpage for the effort. Deleting this page will be disruptive this is one more reason not to delete. Third reason is that look at the sources in current revision of page. Only 1 or 2 press release on reference of facts about company and many other references are in page. Fourth reason are my answers to all nikthestunned questions [1]. There were some concern but now we have corrected them. We should not delete an article because page has concern. We should make corrections. Nikthestunned revision is not anymore current but my revision is not current as well. Deleting this will undermine consensus revision also. Fifth reason look at books that have this topic [2] [3], look at more references [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Therefore, I move that this page not be deleted because this is a notable non profit. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the surface there looks like a lot of coverage, but looking at the references in detail it seems that the coverage is sparse and routine for the most part (and many references are unrelated to the company). The Wall Street Journal article caught my attention but the link is dead and it hasn't been catalogued by Archive.org. I searched for the article title and found a press release by that title. I suspect that someone has attempted to pass off a press release as the WSJ. In short, I just don't see the significant coverage to warrant inclusion per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create this article I am just a neutral user trying to improve and rewrite. This is my second rewrite with help of other users. One revision that nikthestunned likes also has 9 references. Current revision has 26 references. All references discuss ERA and its operations. I can say that routine coverage is also repeating in news and scholar (book) sources see my comment. One external source is even of December 2014 [10]. I have also provided references in my keep comment. Deleting the whole article is like throwing the baby out with bath water. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no baby here. Throw it all out. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's CORPDEPTH not CORPQUANTITY. Widefox; talk 00:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That version is worse, as consensus has established. Nikthestunned 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Topic was revised 2 times by me. That COI data was deleted by nikthestunned first and then fully revised by me it is gone now it is irrelevant to new data. This is debate of notability. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already addressed the relevance for the current article. Widefox; talk 00:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the point, WP:ILLCON says to disregard the sources covering the legal event for notability. Widefox; talk 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are also all press releases and so fail WP:ORGIND too. Nikthestunned 09:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been happy to try and keep the language neutral-ish while it's staying live, and work with User:TheSawTooth but I don't think there is enough evidence to establish notability - as User:Widefox has said, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Press releases aren't sources. Further, the main thing the company seems to have any coverage for - which isn't enough for CORPDEPTH - is its failure to protect data, which isn't in the current version. There are a bazillion waste disposal companies around the world, including electronics recycling specialists, and this one doesn't seem to be in any way notable. Apologies for coming late to this debate - not been on Wiki for a while. I'd suggest that those who wish to argue for its continued inclusion produce a list of the first five WP:RS - the most important ones - that can be reviewed here. None of the existing sources suggest notability, and I'd agree with User:Tchaliburton that there is no baby in this bathwater. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is on tag that it is written like advert. If you worked with me to make it neutral why is this tag on article? Nikthestunned revision was controversy of half truth. I am not happy that COI is happening with some users on this page but it does not mean that we take revenge and use the page to talk about one controversy section reject same source for one thing use it for other like BVC got the blame. If more press release data should be more short like only one line facts, we can do that. We have CORPDEPTH when so many routine sources are on topic. Every source is on this topic not on any other ERA there is no confusion. These sources are not rejected in widefox comment [19] [20] [21]. I am disagreed on this [22] reference because it is edu reference. There are 3 or 4? See more [23] [24] [25] ""Electronic Recycling Association Updates on Donations." Manufacturing Close-Up. Close-Up Media, Inc. 2014", [26]. Review book sources [27] [28]. Please review them all. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The revision you keep calling a "half truth" was a short, 2-line, article supported with reliable sources. It is by far better than the current state the article it is in, with lots of superfluous and promotional information supported by press releases and passing mentions in articles. The sources you keep pasting are not reliable and are not in depth. You've had these "sources" reviewed repeatedly, please stop re-adding the same thing. Do you have any reliable, independent sources which indicate any depth of coverage? Ones which discuss their (reportedly) illegal conduct are not appropriate and they are the only ones I, and seemingly everyone else here, can find. Nikthestunned 16:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer to your concerns case by case now we shall have independent review because you disagree. I am giving references because Adventurous me asked to give references for review. You keep saying there is promotion but you do not tell what is promotion? Type of equipment from press release is promotion or any sentence is saying to buy ERA computers?? You hesitate to tell what sentence is promo? You can paste any sentence it is correctable we can edit it. Promo is not infinite concern. That revision was not just half truth it had one blog in it. It also had same reference which I did edit from but you rejected it. Only one line page with few references can not be more reliable than today's revision with many references. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've added is promotional as it's superfluous information supported by press releases and inappropriate sources only. The blog source you keep mentioning was by a well respected and often referenced lawyer, an expert in her field, making it reliable per WP:BLOGS - I'll quote it for you: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Also, one line with good sources is much better than fifty with bad. Nikthestunned 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned by neutral user to stop saying everything is wrong without telling. Tell what is wrong. Name it mistakes, errors and promo data. Where is promotional wording? It was google blog I can create blog on google how will it prove it is of lawyer? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was made by @Jytdog before I provided a list of the many problems with the article at extensive length. It's here. Stop misrepresenting other editors.
RE: the blog, I'll copy what I said on the talk page: What blog are you on about? I'm talking about this one, by this lawyer - who is featured in many articles as an expert in law:[29][30]. Nikthestunned 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I not reply to your concern? AFD admin can read our replies. I am talking about your new advert tag. It is added after that debate. What is written like advert? Any sales or marketing going on? Will you tell any example? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheSawTooth: I agree with User:AdventurousMe, User:Tchaliburton and especially User:Nikthestunned: Immediately stop misrepresenting other editors (multiple times above) and read WP:AGF. Let others give their opinions freely here. Regarding weak sources, weak points and disruption, ditto on the article and talk - see WP:OWN. This is blatant POV pushing against consensus, and similar behaviour in the AfD of another article involving the same set of confirmed paid editors Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Minter per WP:COIN. Better than merely claiming no COI, behaving as such would be more convincing. Widefox; talk 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss about data not editors. I did not hold any one's tongue. They asked me give five references. I put them for review here. Stop trying to silence me. Admin can delete this topic if it is not notable it will not effect me. Your COI report is without evidence but you put it everywhere you want to undermine my posts. Consensus is not voting it is discussing stop stopping me from discussing let them review references or are you afraid references may be good? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you are refusing to stop this disruption here and elsewhere, I will report your account WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 00:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am just asking you to discuss or let discuss. If you disagree ok good but let them review. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is not working? Some are paid journal references you will need credit card. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it working? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably this press release. Nikthestunned 00:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was working last time. Page is moved maybe. I searched this title again. [31] [32]. It is from same news agency maybe so it is also here. Author is Keith Barker not ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - at the bottom of the first link you provided it says: "Sources: CNW - ERA pr 2013" and the second: "SOURCE: Electronic Recycling Association". Also, it's clearly a press release. Nikthestunned 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is references section. Good topics have sources section like wikipedia. Is there proof that it is written by ERA or ERA is author? Explain why is a person name written in author? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not working! Widefox; talk 01:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know it has become WP:DeadLink. Title was "The Electronic Recycling Association introduces the only mobile hard drive shredders in Western Canada, and Metro Vancouver" so I have researched it. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a press release, written by ERA. There is no doubt about that. Nikthestunned 09:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is going round in circles due to reluctance to accept facts by User:TheSawTooth - this dead ref / PR was explicitly marked / pointed out 6th Dec [33] "dead and actual ref is PR". Widefox; talk 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a press release and one users reluctance to accept it does not mean that the article goes thru AfD unscathed. Let the closing admin decide here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is your argument? Use policy argument be civil. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the article appears to be worded neutrally as TheSawTooth says (and I understand their newbie instinct to keep their "first major contribution"), let's not keep an article similar to a company with in-depth coverage while academic sources do not discuss the operations or any other significant roles of the company in the same depth (atleast yet or as yet demonstrated). I find WP:CORPDEPTH the only right argument for this (also suggest it to TST and other contributors of the article to read it through) as it says deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.. Given that this is a non-profit, there are news reports based on its work but this is not wikinews, it is wikipedia (an encyclopedia). Similarly, Nikthestunned's version of the article focuses mainly on a controversy making it WP:COATRACK instead of discussing the non-profit itself. Given that Nikthestunned appears to have recognized this factor in his own nomination, it is best to delete the article. If the company acquires more notability in the terms of independent scholarly news WP:RS coverage (not more press releases alone), an editor will eventually create an article about it (with no prejudice to TheSawTooth). However, it does not look like that it will happen any time soon. To preempt any back and forth discussion on my comment, I'd note in advance that I have reached this opinion even after ignoring the edits by IPs, COI or other behaviour allegations (or any non content discussions for that matter). Disclaimer: I found this AFD via TheSawTooth's contributions history after I saw this come up at ANI, but I have no dispute with him / her so I find it ok to drop my two cents on this apparently heated discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Special events work with police and book reference is routine??? How many reference is depth? What more type of reference is corpdepth what may it discuss? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_Recycling_Association&oldid=1136112363"