Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Recycling Association (2nd nomination)

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. advertising DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 still not notable - all sourcing in this article is either a press release or fails to establish notability due to WP:ILLCON, exactly the same as the last time this page was created (and then unanimously deleted, discounting the blocked editor who put most of the spam together). Nikthestunned 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As discussed in previous AfD, coverage is largely local, related to a minor crime, and usually mentions the subject tangentially. Should this be salted? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article is the product of a sock farm. Please see this discussion on COIN. Thanks @Widefox: -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It was more of shady business dealing than an actual crime but that alone is not what makes this company notable. This company went from a small company with shady and questionable business practices to a large company on the for fronts of fighting fraud and promoting recycling throughout Canada through their partnerships with law enforcement and community groups. They have received significant coverage that is both RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT of the subject. It for these reasons that I believe that Electronic Recycling Association meets the notability requirements for organizations and companies.

Thatwhoiswise (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles concerning the 'partnerships with law enforcement and community groups' are in any way independent of the company - they're routine press announcements and comprise the majority of sources and information in the article. Nikthestunned 23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jergling expresses the case against keeping perfectly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant advertising, plain and simple, given the fact it all only consists with the company's own "About" page, something of which is a blatant sign of never being acceptable, let alone notability and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 2 December 2016 (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.