Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubberecycle


 * 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. -- Lear's Fool 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rubberecycle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article looks like it has a long list of references at first glance, but if you check them individually, a few are to indiscriminate business directories, a few are links to general EPA information on rubber, and (with one exception) the rest are press releases or reprints of press releases. The one exception is a link to a LA times article called 'Health concerns over Obamas' swing set mulch.' However, that article does mention that there are health concerns with the rubber mulch installed at the White House, but the Times does not mention the Rubberecycle by name or include any discussion of the company - it is purely about rubber mulch in general. As such, this company doesn't have 'significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources' and fails WP:CORP. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment NN. I can also create an article about a local tire recycling company, but I'm also not sure if two notable distinctions are enough - largest in the Middle East, and another one I cannot mention right now. --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, Not sure if it is grounds for deletion, but apparently editors with special interest for this company keep advertising this article on 2 other articles repeatedly. here and here, in fact a lot of the edits on those 2 articles have to do with adding a reference to the AFD'd article. .--Shmaltz (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more like 7 or 8 articles, here's an example of one of their IPs: . They used to do a lot of refspamming, too, but thankfully they have given up on that. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also, for example, this habitual spammer (now blocked), and this one. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And one of the spammers has just tried to remove the AFD tag from the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the independence of the sources is just not there. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 24 July 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.