Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Environmental


 * 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. After ignoring the army of socks, we're left with a clear delete consensus. Courcelles 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

CJ Environmental

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find significant coverage of this company in reliable sources to meet WP:CORP or WP:N Although the article is puffed up, it is based off of primary sources, advertising pieces, and passing mentions. Overall nothing within the text or the sources evidences notability.  Them From  Space  04:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク &#124; I wanna chAngE!) 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is profiled in Inc. Magazine at http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2009/company-profile.html?id=200901250, and discussed substantively in the Christian Science Monitor at http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0204/p03s04-usec.html and the Press Democrat at http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101004/BUSINESS/101009760/1033?p=all&tc=pgall, all three of which are WP:RS, and which satisfies our requirements under WP:Notability. The nomination is inappropriate under these circumstances. AkankshaG (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those 2 passing mentions and the bare-bones profile hardly constitute "significant coverage".  Them From  Space  01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree that the Inc. "profile" is, in fact, a bare-bones mention in a rolling list, and not remotely the feature article AkankshaG and Sandfernandocourt imply that it is. The other two cites Akanksha raises are likewise passing mentions; this particular company is neither the subject of, nor discussed in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, in either.  The other cites in the article, which look superficially good, are either likewise passing mentions or fail to be reliable sources.  That being said, would Sanfernandocourt care to explain what makes this a bad faith nomination?  Anything beyond that he disagrees with it, or the implication that someone who describes himself as a "deletionist" must by definition have malicious intent?  I am sure, for example, that he would not care himself to be characterized as having made a "bad faith keep" simply because he erroneously conflates a mention on Inc.'s website into a feature article in the magazine?   Ravenswing  06:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm AkankshaG's argument about "deletionist means article is good" is tough to take. There are the three sources given, but Inc is minimal, the CSM article is acceptable, and the Press Democrat article is onyl 50% about CJ Environmental. I thought perhaps the news articles would be under "CashforGoldUSA", but that just shows a press release and makes me suspect this is a company strong in marketing and capturing a current meme, not a company truly satisfying WP:GNG, not to mention taking advantage of the Cash4Gold name. So I say delete. Admittedly, about 50% of my !vote is my gut feel and because I worked on creating the Cash4Gold article, about 50% of it is based on Wikipedia guidelines. tedder (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the company has been featured at [Fox 5 News http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/investigative/FOX_5_Investigates_Cash_for_Gold] as well as the Christian Science Monitor, Press Democrat, and Inc. Magazine articles mentioned above.SharedPlanetType (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, all passing mentions from sources that don't deal much with this particular company. None of these provide in-depth coverage of the company.  Them From  Space  04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per AkrankshaG. I hate the commercials for these companies, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable.  I easily found two articles about them in Inc. and the Press Democrat and Monitor articles mentioned.  All of this and the Fox 5 broadcast means this subject fits what we ask for in WP:GNG and WP:CORP.  CPerked (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment its funny how all these new accounts are swarming in here to !vote "keep", just like at the last AfD of one of AkankshaG's articles. I smell meatpuppets.  Them  From  Space  04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Considering that SharedPlanetType and CPerked were created within two days of one another in September, and were largely silent until they entered a burst of AfDs yesterday and today, I think a checkuser is very much in order.  Ravenswing  17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concern I have my suspicions regarding her, Ciplex and a connection to Mywikibiz. But I am waiting for her to come back and and respond on her talk page before going to the community. Should AkankshaG be involved in the CU? Phearson (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think so, his editing is very fishy. He hasn't done much lately besides create and maintain promotional articles.  Them  From  Space  21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - sockies ahoy! The following accounts are ✅ as being the same editor;


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note An ANI has began regarding this AfD and bunch of other not-fun stuffs regarding AkankshaG and the Meaty/Socky puppets. Phearson (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The Fox 5 report, the Christian Science Monitor, Press Democrat, and the two Inc. Magazine articles, all of which substantially talk about their company, seem like reputable sources. — Shary84 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The Fox 5 report, the Christian Science Monitor,Press Democrat, and the two Inc. Magazine articles, all of which substantially talk about their company, seem like reputable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalroy85 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * note Per request, this page is now semi-protected against our voting-box stuffers. It is advised that the closer scrutinize votes made by users with little or no editing history. Phearson (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.