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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle Track Systems (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)

An advertorially toned page on a private business; significant RS coverage not found. Has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recycle Track Systems. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as (repeated) unambiguous WP:PROMO, aggravated by apparent disregard for previous community consensus. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag: yes poorly written and reads like an advert, however it looks very well sourced from a range of different independent sources which suggests it is more than routine. Previous discussion was not much of a discussion at all as only 1 person commented. With some improvement tags may and a slight rewrite in tone it could be an ok article. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: also a quick Google search reveals Forbes and CNBC wrote about them [1] [2] so I don't think it is just a standard case of self-promotion, passes WP:GNG for me Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece is an interview with the CEO, with regurgitated PR as lead-in. The CNBC piece is from a college student "contributor" and is built around PR text and images. That's not good enough to pass WP:NCORP, even if the WP:PROMO policy violation is ignored. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: about CNBC authorship: it doesn't matter if the author is a college student; the piece has to pass CNBC editorial review. It's not a blog posting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend keep The deletion nomination is predicated on 'advertorial tone' and 'lack of reliable sources'. The first is an editing issue; the second is false. There also seems to be a presumption that something deleted via AfD should stay deleted. There are remedies for this: WP:SALT, Speedy deletion, blocking of authors ... though these are pretty heavy hammers and don't seem appropriate in this case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite the blizzard of references, I don't see anything that makes this meet WP:NCORP. WP:THREE applies. If I had run across this on my own, I might have deleted it under WP:G11. List of customers, lists of dubious awards, lists of things they've done to make an impact? That's not an encyclopedia article, that's a PR piece. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 19 November 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.