Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winters Brothers


 * 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. ansh 666 06:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Winters Brothers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. This appears to me to be an unremarkable waste and recycling company. Notability hinges on the four articles in Newstimes, which in my assessment mostly feature the company talking about itself and appear to be the work of a PR company and would fail WP:ORGIND. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Yes, I agree. The notability hinges on the Newstimes articles but they don't meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. -- HighKing ++ 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I recently expanded on the article to discuss the significant railroad operations in the Connecticut and New York regions. This article describes a notable company in the Connecticut and Long Island regions, being the largest waste management company in these markets. For example, all of Waste Management's operations in Connecticut and New York (excluding NYC) are contracted through Winters Brothers. I disagree that the references cited fail Wikipedia's credibility standards, as the news articles were created by independent news sources and all company profiles and information about the company listed on Wikipedia are from third-party sources. There are several links to other pages on Wikipedia, including TWO railroad lines that the company operates with under contract. This article is also not a stub, and provides plenty of information as to the history of the company, and how it holds some of the largest waste management assets in the Northeast Untied States. I would not have taken the time to write this article if I did not feel this company had a significant economic impact on this region of the country, where most waste services are privatized. These are the reasons why I find this article to be significant, and I hope you take the time to review the recent changes I have made and hopefully reconsider. Rather than campaigning to delete these articles of mid-sized companies in the Northeast US, please help me to expand upon them. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert
 * Comment The test for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability is not solely whether an article was created by an independent news source but the article must also be "intellectually" independent. Similarly, for the purposes of establishing notability, content published by third party sources must also be intellectually independent. Therefore references that rely almost exclusively on content prepared and/or published by the company or their officers is not considered intellectually independent and therefore these references do not assist in establishing the notability of this company. Of the references provided, none meet the criteria and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * This newstimes article relies exclusively on an interview with Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * This newstime article from June 2011 also relies exclusively on information provided by the company, their employees and Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * The bloomberg profile is provided by the company, as are all profiles published by Bloomberg. It is not intellectually independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a run-of-the-mill company description and fails WP:ORGIND as it is provided by the company.
 * This newstime article from March 2011 is largely based on a company announcement and quotations and/or an interview with company officers, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This newstime article from July 2011 is largely based on a news conference held by Mr. Winters, contains no independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * This winterbros reference and this one are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for independence for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * This libn.com article on "trash trains" relies on quotations from Will Flower, a company officer, for information on Winters Bros and is therefore not intellectually independent and does not contain independent opinion or analysis in relation to Winters Bros, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * The reference from thereflectedpast.com and the hrrc.com reference make no mention of the Winter Bros.
 * This prnewswire reference is a company announcement, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * this waste360.com reference is based on a news release (as is stated at the end of the second paragraph) and is largely based on a company press release and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This reference from pehub.com is based on a press release from an investor, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * In my opinion and based on the points I've raised above, none of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and it is a small part of the overall test to check that the articles were published by organisations independent of the company. -- HighKing ++ 15:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still lacks any reliable independent references to establish notability, as detailed above.. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. In this case, I think the sources are in fact sufficient to show notability. and the importance of the company sufficient that this is what would be expected.  DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (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.