Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SA Recycling LLC

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. – Joe (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SA Recycling LLC

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

References non-notable sources, and only a passing mention in a notable source. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Withdrawing !vote ~~Speedy Keep~~Keep In addition to a company profile story in the Orange County Register [1] and a dedicated article on it in a trade pub - Recycling Today - which is RS for its specific industry [2], BEFORE shows it has also been the subject of dedicated articles in other RS like The Decatur Daily [3], Phoenix New Times [4], and Santa Maria Times [5], etc., etc. There's also this dedicated article about it (under its former name of Adams Metals) in the Los Angeles Times [6] from 1991. A check on newspapers.com also finds articles back to the 1980s in mainstream newspapers. When combined with the Bloomberg listing (which doesn't help GNG but contributes to CORPDEPTH) and the more incidental mentions in RS, this should be fine (albeit needing improvement, including introduction of some of the "rougher" history like the toxic waste enforcement action in '91). ~~EDIT: Updating to Speedy Keep post-improvements.~~ Chetsford (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Drewmutt. The sources are all non-notable sources and most probably unreliable for the most part. The article also looks to be an advert and quite promotional. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While maintaining Keep, I agree with Lacypaperclip the article appears WP:PROMOTIONAL in its current state and needs to be rewritten. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've de-promotionalized it, adding in additional refs, and filled-out the bare refs. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drewmutt - just pinging you to let you know I've de-promotionalized the article (I'm guessing this was written by someone inside the company itself) and added additional refs, etc., in case you want to take another look. Chetsford (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chetsford's work and sources listed. --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written, reliable sourced. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't provided an analysis of sourcing, also, of course Chetsford is going to defend this work: he was the AfC reviewer who made a horrible accept of spam into mainspace, and he's now trying to defend that poor acceptance. He isn't an independent editor anymore, and his views should be weighted roughly the same as we would an article creator defending their own non-notable puff piece. There hasn't been a single policy-based or sourcing based argument presented for why we should keep this article. I also think that Drewmutt should be thanked for his thankless work patrolling recently accepted AfC drafts. He's been catching a lot of low-quality acceptances of late, and of course the people who made those poor judgement calls are going to defend them: it's natural and understandable, but it does not equate to a neutral editor giving their view on the topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I totally endorse everything you have said here TonyBallioni. I would have stated the exact thing either here, or at the afc talk, but the last time I expressed some concerns about this same editor you are referring to here, I, as the messenger got killed. The discussion still sits in a closed blue archive box on the afc talk page. Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't intended as an attack on their general reviewing: I'm not familiar with it, and we all make mistakes (I've made bigger mistakes in good faith). My point is that we typically look at authors of spam articles in AfD and count weight their opinions less: they can't provide an objective look at their own work, but we take into account their views on why the article meets policy, and others can be informed by it. My point is that AfC reviewers have a bias to protect articles they accept that is probably about equal to an article author: no one likes admitting they were wrong. Something I've noticed at most AfDs of AfC articles is that the reviewer of course is going to defend the article they accepted, and this somewhat defeats the point of an AfD, which is to provide neutral community review of articles. I think taking into account these biases is an important part in determining consensus, and not pointing out that they exist makes it so that AfC articles have an artificially high AfD survival rate compared to the equivalent article created directly in mainspace. If this had been just a regular new pages feed article, I suspect everyone here would be !voting to delete it even if it had been improved. We need to keep in mind the biases that our processes cause, and do our best to treat articles the same regardless of their method of creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni I assure you it was not my intention to simply defend this for the sake of defending it. Second, I would like to respectfully dispute your characterization of this as a "horrible" acceptance by me. After accepting it I, first, immediately (in less than 60 seconds of acceptance) placed several templates on the page and, second (as soon as I was able to thereafter), rewrote the entire article from scratch. I did not just "fire and forget" its approval, nor would I ever approve a borderline article I was not willing to personally commit the energy to immediately fixing. I did, and do, genuinely believe it meets NCORP for both CORPDEPTH and breadth of sources based on the fact it has received non-incidental coverage spanning a period of several decades. Having said all that, since you've raised a concern that I am not neutral in this discussion I have withdrawn my !vote completely out of a preponderance of caution. We're often not good judges of our own neutrality so if I said or did something that indicated my judgment was impaired then I sincerely apologize. Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, of course you weren't doing anything wrong here and were acting in good faith. This has been something I had been thinking about for a while in regards to the intersection of AfC and AfD, and you just happened to be unfortunate enough to be the first reviewer I raised the issue with. People are free to comment on things they are involved in, but closers typically take the involvement into account. My note here was just to point out some thoughts I had been having re: neutrality and AfC, so the closer could consider it. I disagree with you substantively as well: this falls below our normal NCORP standards as the audience is pretty limited and the sourcing is pretty local or trivial, and some of it is recycled press. That's a good faith disagreement, though. As I said above, not a comment on your reviewing in general as much as a comment on how it is difficult to get a review of the AfC process because of these unconscious biases. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced that there is notability here. The article still looks promotional to me. The only claim of significance is that the biz is the biggest in socal? So what? Even that claim looks to be in dispute. Fails GNG plus notability hasn't been established. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the sourcing is either minor mentions or local in nature (yes, the LA Times local coverage is local coverage just like any other paper's. The same would go for the NYT or WaPo, and LAT isn't on their level in terms of prestige.) The reduced promotionalism also doesn't matter: the article was created with the intent of promoting the company. Having a page on Wikipedia, even if neutral, is a form of advertising as we are the fifth largest website in the world and the first Google search result for everything. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts.[...] those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Our policy has no tolerance for advertising, and our definition of it is not solely limited to tone (it is for G11, but an XfD can delete for promo beyond just tone, see WP:DEL14, WP:NOTSPAM, and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE.)
For a borderline notable company, where inclusion on Wikipedia would be the biggest coverage they have ever received, and where the article was created in a clear attempt to promote, the answer under policy is obvious: we delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (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.