Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcata Community Recycling Center

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 keep. The consensus of those commenting are that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the General Notability Criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcata Community Recycling Center

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

As much as I love conservation, this article unfortunately may not be notable as my searches found no good sources aside for mainly a lawsuit; results here, here and here along with possible results here. One of my last searches also found here that says it is nationally recognized as a model recycling center but there's not much weight for notability. The article basically hasn't been improved and I'm not any possibility with it closed now. FWIW, I considered keeping it since it at least had two sources but I'm still not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was previously brought to AfD and closed NO CONSENSUS: [1]. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge to Arcata, California#Environmental innovation. I'm seeing it referenced and mentioned many times in significant ways in books/papers from the past few decades, but there's no slam dunk source that I can find (and I'm just finding out that my HighBeam and Questia accounts expired :/). Some of the sources are about environmentalism in Arcata more broadly, which makes me think there could be an article on that subject. Regardless, it could easily be added to the section in the town's article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), you can renew your HighBeam and Questia accounts at Wikipedia:HighBeam#Apply or renew your account and Wikipedia:Questia#Apply or renew. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is going to be a GNG pass here as the object of multiple instances of substantial, independently published coverage of presumed reliability. THIS is coverage in the Eureka Times-Standard, for example. Bear in mind that this company has been open for 45 years... Carrite (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HERE'S some coverage of the closure which preceded the restart mentioned above via Lost Coast Outpost. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is coverage of that same closure in the Ukiah Daily Journal in case that last source and it's press-release-heavy content doesn't do it for ya... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was weird that the Times Standard didn't mention ACRC until incidental mentions started flooding in in 1975. I believe that the reason is that the facility was started under a different name, as an enterprise of the NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, as this 1971 article intimates. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the problem, THIS snippet on expanded hours makes it pretty clear that the original name was Northcoast Environmental Center. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the promotional bullshit (and flags for same), corrected the erroneous origins information, and put the article into an acceptable WP state of repair. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Carrite. The coverage in the Times-Standard and Ukiah Daily Journal is sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2015 (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.