Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReUse Connection

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. Jujutacular ^talk 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ReUse Connection

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. All the links are either blogs, don't mention or imply them by name, or are unreliable in some other way. While perhaps well meaning, it is bordering on advertising. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, the following references are "reliable":

a. Moorhouse, Ellen (2010). Trash Talk: Are those old videos just garbage?. yourhome.caYourhome.ca/ (A Toronto Star newspaper blog). Ellen Moorhouse was Editor in various departments of the Toronto Star, from October 1983 to December 2004 (21 years 3 months). During this time her various responsibilities, included: assistant business editor responsible for the Sunday business section; editorial board editor responsible for op-ed and editorial pages in the Saturday and Sunday Star, and real estate editor in charge of two weekly real estate sections. She has been writing the “Trash Talk” column for the Toronto Star’s ‘yourhome.ca’ blog since approximately April 2009 (oldest Trash Talk article I found: http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/622811--trash-talk-don-t-chuck-it-use-it). According to Jennifer Wilson, Editor of the Toronto Star, "Ellen Moorhouse is a professional journalist. . . Yourhome.ca is not considered a blog, but a full-fledged site under the Toronto Star’s umbrella, and therefore fall under the same journalistic standards."

b. Wasson, Julia (2010). ReUse Connection – Ideas for Repurposing, Freely Shared. Blue Planet Green Living Julia Wasson has a distinguished career in marketing, publishing, writing, and editing. She and Blue Planet Green Living have already been cited as a refernce for a Wikipedia article. See reference #1 at: Harvard "Pete" Palmer, Jr. ("Donate Vehicle—Help Charity—Get Tax Deduction," www.blueplanetgreenliving.com, November 11, 2009, by Julia Wasson).

c. Tottleben, Cy (2010). The ReUse Connection: Keeping material out of the landfill. Mother Nature Network. Cy Tottleben, according to MNN.com (a blog that has its own Wikipedia page - Mother Nature Network), graduated from Indiana University with a BA in history. Cy has spent the past 20 years educating others on the three R’s — reusing, reducing and recycling, which has earned her the nickname of "The Crazy Recycling Lady." Her current project is affecting change in her business by greening her store and spreading these practices throughout the corporation. (See: http://www.mnn.com/users/ctottleben).

d. Grover, Sami (2010). [Reuse Community Takes Facebook By Storm - With More to Come]. TreeHugger. Treehugger is the number 1 environmental blog on the web and has a Wikipedia article (TreeHugger). Sami Grover has been a writer for TreeHugger since 2007. He has worked in academic publishing, specializing in issues related to sustainability. He has been published in Permaculture Magazine. Sami is the co-creative director at The Change Creation. (See: http://www.treehugger.com/author/sami-grover/). :Other publications by Sami Grover include: (2007). Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture, Positive News, and others listed on http://planetgreen.discovery.com/author/sami-grover/.

Ginalizardi (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I came to the same conclusions as the nominator. Essentially, this subject doesn't have in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Sources that I found include blogs (good for some information but shouldn't be the basis of notability), trivial coverage, and press releases, much in the way the article is currently sourced. The subject fails WP:ORG (WP:CORPDEPTH) and lacks WP:BASIC features of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 21:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The above call for deletion states that the article does not have: 1) in-depth coverage by 2) multiple reliable sources [that are] 3) independent of the subject. In addition, it states that the coverage is 4) trivial and [includes] 5) press releases.

The coverage is “in-depth” -- In every article cited, ReUse Connection is the main topic and the activities of the site are described.
The four sources cited above are very “reliable” (several have been used as sources for other Wikipedia articles) -- The articles cited were written for publications with journalistic integrity and by writers with a history of covering sustainability that are considered mavens in their fields.
All sources cited are independent -- They are all 3rd parties and chose to write articles for their publications and their readers. You can verify that by emailing them. I actually reached out to the editorial department at the Toronto Starto verify the journalistic integrity of the article.
The coverage is non-trivial -- I read the description under “depth of coverage” in notability guidelines and none of the sources cited are in the list of trivial sources. I have seen several approved references cited on Wikipedia where the entity is mentioned in passing (see Inhabitat), making it trivial. In ReUse Connection’s case, the articles were written about the website as journalism.
Not a single source cited was a press release -- I am not sure where this claim came from. In fact, in all of my research, I have not found one press release issued by ReUse Connection.

Ginalizardi (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)— Ginalizardi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comparing to other articles is not a rationale to keep. Actual, keeping isn't a matter of rationale, it is a matter of criteria. Having a long list of references is meaningless if they are blogs. The fact that other articles may use the same blogs as references doesn't mean they are ok, it means that no one has bothered to remove them from those articles yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline speedy delete, CSD-G11 & A7. I recognise that the website is probably doing excellent work to promote recycling, but there is no evidence of notability here. References supplied are blogs and cannot be considered reliable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The yourhome.ca is actually the Toronto Star newspaper, so it is a reliable source under editorial control. However, the other sources are bit more dubious. In total, the coverage presented is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment - Whpq, thank you for finally recognizing that the Toronto Star is a reliable source. I have spent 13 days trying to explain this to your fellow editors! The article has been slightly modified and proper references have been included (articles printed in the actual/printed magazines Natural Life and Political Themata [in Greek]).

Natural Life has both printed and online versions of its magazine. Political Themata does not have an online presence but it featured a four-page article on ReUse Connection that originally sold on Greek newsstands and in Greek bookstores. The article was deemed reliable enough to be picked up and reprinted in a separate, online publication (independent of Political Themata), as referenced.

If these, combined with the Toronto article and the many blog articles (there are probably 20 more I did not list) are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's criteria, then I raise the white flag. . . Ginalizardi (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite a lot of pro-keep tl;dr on this page, I still don't see a single seriously reliable source to conffirm its notability. Max Semenik (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.