Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program


 * 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   Yash  t  101   02:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I find it hard to find notability in this. I see no reason to believe that these recycling bins are any different than millions spread thru out the world. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The topic is about the national-level recycling program, not just the bins that are used! Please see my !vote below, in which I have included many reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (from author): The article refers to a program run by the entire U.S. Federal government, not just a bin in a single place, as if being one of millions. There could be perhaps 100 similar articles about national-post recycling programs in other nations. The wp:Notability comes from continued mention (many years) in multiple reliable sources, whereas if the coverage had spanned only 1 year, or 1 source, then that would indicate limited notability. Instead, there are other sources which estimate the energy savings and the reduction of tons of paper which would have gone into landfills, if not recycled by the U.S. program. So, the notability has even increased over the years, and U.S. postal recycling has continued in 2012. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, all the same could be said about thousands of municipal recycling pick up programs thruout the country. In terms of significance and environmental benefits, I don't see a lot of difference here. The coverage is pretty much routine. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into United States Postal Service as proposed way back in April 2009. The greenie in me almost wants to keep it as a standalone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the classic bad merge vote. Where, in USPS, should this material go? The article doesn't have a single section that would be appropriate for this material. Creating a section would be a classic example of undue weight for what is a minor part of what the post office does. As I say to nearly all merge voters, where and how in the target article should this be merged. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  21:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that a merge should only be done it it does not give undue WP:BALANCE and it does seem that it is difficult to ene squeeze in a sentence about the topic into United States Postal Service. A better alternatives is merge with Recycling in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

*Delete as non-notable. And I don't support a merge. It is not sufficiently significant content for the main article. Where the material might go is as an example in Paper recycling. Or perhaps we should have an article on Recycling efforts of the US Government and associated entitites  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging to Paper recycling is a bit WP:CSBish. Merging to Recycling in the United States is better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But there is 14,000 ghits. Are you feeling ok... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep When you do trivial things on the vast scale of the USPO, they have a tendency to become notable. The referencing already here seems to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete A recycling program is hardly notable. There's nothing different between this and a city recycling program. Gsingh (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A national-level recycling program that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This topic passes WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems a notable national scheme different from your average recycling scheme in targetting this specific group: recipients of junk mail at source. But Rename: it looks as if it should be called Read, Respond, Recycle, which seems to be the name of the campaign, or alternatively United States Post Office box lobby recycling program, as it's country-specific. Pam  D  07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing to keep, primarily because of the USA Today article, which does show national coverage. I support either one of the renames Pam suggested  DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Support renaming the article to USPS Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program, as it's referred to by the USPS here, as "Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program". Abbreviating the first part of the title as "USPS" may be functional to prevent the article from having an excessively long title. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (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.