Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Pollution Coalition


 * 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. Tone 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Plastic Pollution Coalition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No proof of any kind of notability. Article was PRODded (and tagged for notability) by ; this was undone (without explanation) by in this edit, which added a long list of apparent members. The article is nothing more than a mission statement and a couple of promotional POV statements. Searching through Google News reveals more namedropping (because some famous people are associated with it) and press releases disguised as news, like this. There are some indirect references, like this one, but I don't see proof of notability by our standards. Either way, the article should be rewritten from scratch. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I must have missed it otherwise I'd have AfDed it myself, clearly fails WP:NCOMPANY, list of non-notable staff nonwithstanding (it fact it makes it more promotional). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for as long as there exist extensive series of rambling articles on fictional themes like Dimension Jump (Red Dwarf episode). And more to the point: The plastics industry is well represented in WP without anyone questiong the bias towards simplification and promotion (see e.g. Society of the Plastics Industry, Plastics News, British Plastics Federation and numerous others). Are you kidding me? Of course I do not think that the deletion proposal is an indirect consequence of year-long neoliberal indoctrination and skewing of the public's perception on all matters concerning the petroleum industry. How could I. But maybe we have a case of selective perception here. Thank you for reading up to this point.-- Kku (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument is addressed at WP:Other stuff exists and WP:WHATABOUTX. Our guideline, WP:Notability, has been crafted and debated over a long period of time by many editors. If you wish to understand why articles are deleted or kept on Wikipedia, that is the only thing that matters. Our opinion on PPC or the British Plastics Federation does not. You may also be interested in WP:Subjective importance, WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Daask (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The double standards are painful and debasing. But thanks for your didactic effort anyway. -- Kku (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Earth Island Institute where this company is mentioned. An admirable organisation, but unfortunately not one that has received enough coverage to pass GNG or WP:NCORP per nom. The article is also laden with promotional language. I would encourage Kku to nominate the articles they have mentioned for deletion if they believe they are also not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While I still disagree even with a replacement by redirect, the appropriate parent page would rather be Earth Island Institute. -- Kku (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have changed my redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. There appears to be a very large amount of passing news coverage, and articles like The Ecologist have adequate depth. Daask (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:NCORP satisfied many good sources ; sources that are significant within Cultural ecology. High profile sponsors who publicly support it.  tedX talk host, [The Ecologist], international coverage (not just local), an international alliance with branches in 60 different countries, major partnerships - , , change.org  Dianna Cohen, CEO & Co-Founder of Plastic Pollution Coalition, has signed on to Heal the Bay's petition to fast-track the approval of the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act. even a goop.com feature, indepth, independent and about Plastic only (makes it an article independent of the company that started it).so in summary strong keep (bolded wording in lede some reason not showing up).
 * NBC News one activist at a time - using this company to represent the entire anti-plastic movement.
 * significant in the categories : plastic pollution, ecology, business, Marine pollution, recycling.Grmike (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike


 * increasingly relevent since being made a priority issue at the 44th G7 summit.Grmike (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * comment - participated in legislation that will be on the 2020 ballot.Grmike (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * I still think it is a key member because among dozens of organizations involved it is always one of the few listed at always near the top.Grmike (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike


 * Keep. The article meets WP:GNG and has sufficient references. Promotional content in the first section should be modified.Lordofthesky (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe I have substantially improved the article since it was nominated. Daask (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * yes good job.Grmike (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike


 * Keep. The sources cited above are a combination of promotional press releases and passing mentions, and absolutely none of them contribute to notability. However, actually looking at the article, the new sources added about the American Idol video and the article by The Guardian about California's waste do provide significant coverage, meaning this organization passes GNG. Therefore I am changing my vote. Also, User:Grmike, bolding essentially half your comment is really annoying and makes you look obnoxious. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had some trouble with the semi-quotes. I think that another user fixed it.Grmike (talk)grmike


 * 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.