Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental 360 Solutions

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. Simply being a public service utility does not mean that a company is notable. Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental 360 Solutions[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. The sources cited are press releases, routine coverage in local newspapers about "garbage pickup", and mention in trade journals. This secondary source had some detail, but not nearly enough to establish notability, and I was unable to locate other secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Full disclosure: I wrote the article. First time writing article, saw that there's a section in Markham, Ontario (place I grew up in) for Miller Group (construction company) and garbage collection. Thought I could contribute the same way by finding a business that had a few more sources than the article for Miller, following layout, and to try writing on Wikipedia. The most notable citations, I could find of company I wrote about were Globe and Mail, The Star, and City News. Sorry for any inconvenience. Catpaperscissors (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Catpaperscissors: I think you might have used wp:other stuff exists badly when creating the article. I would advise not creating pages based on the existence of some other pages.

Don't worry about inconvenience, it is not really an inconvenience since after the discussion has closed, there will be a consensus on whether the article should exists and future users can avoid the same mistake of creating an non-notable article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Evaluting based on WP:NCORP, sources provided in the article fails WP:ORGCRIT as they do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:INDEPENDENT. It is also evidenced by the content of the article itself where the content solely consists of a history overview of the company, meaning there is not much information outside of wp:routine coverage. Before searches online do not yield additional sources that can satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they are not wp:independent. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since it is a public service utility company. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because it is a public service utility company. The public, and therefore the encyclopedia, has a vested interest in these kinds of companies because of their impact.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2021 (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.