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. Based on the weight of argument supported by WP:PAG, in particular the new and somewhat stricter NCORP, I believe a rough consensus in favor of deletion exists. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recently deleted as spam but it has been around since 2015 so it deserves a deletion discussion. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 00:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been created by a paid editor for the article subject, using an alternate account dedicated exclusively to this kind of edits: You can presume any edits I have made are on behalf of the article-subject or their employer, unless I specify otherwise. (from User:BC1278); see also Special:Diff/718631179~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made this disclosure at Talk:Ecoscraps and when it went through AfC. A reviewing editor wanted to see that the company was active in between major media articles. I complied but this led to a lot of marginal information IMO. I think a lot of the material reads as very promotional and I'd like to remove that material myself, if it's acceptable to move this to Draft for the time being.BC1278 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
The tier-one, independent, reliable sourcing for this article includes Inc. Magazine, CNNMoney, Reuters, Food & Wine MagazineForbes. I have made several suggestions for deleting passages that seem to me to be promotional at Talk: Ecoscraps#Request_Edits. These help address the objection that the article is spammy. While some admins say they have no problem with a COI editor making mainspace edits during an AfD discussion, other editors have said should not be allowed. So I leave it to someone else to evaluate these Request Edits, unless someone can cite a firm policy that says I can do this myself.BC1278 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
It is a common misunderstanding of policy to interpret "independent" in the way you have done. Please take a read of WP:NCORP. None of those references are *intellectually independent* as they rely extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources, or rely on company announcements, or are routine company news such as investments. These types of articles (commonly referred to as "paid news" or churnalism) fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability and specifically fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The core premise of the "intellectually independent" policy is that "the content must not be produced by interested parties," which is clearly not the case with these tier-one media feature stories. The idea that a feature article by a staff journalist at a tier-one publication does not count as "independent" if it has extensive interviews/quotations from the company is not to be found in WP:NCORP. In fact, no tier-one publication would ever allow a feature story to be written about a company or individual without requesting such access. Journalists are obligated to speak extensively with profile subjects. The stories above are feature articles (not tied to announcements or press releases), appearing over an extended period of years. They are not "dependent" (there is a very specific list of such instance in WP:NCORP and they do not apply here), but rather independently produced journalism. For example, the Inc. Magazine story was featured on the cover of the May 2011 print edition of Inc. Magazine. And the CNNMoney story is a multi-interview feature (meaning it's not tied to a news event and takes a broad perspective.) The Reuters article compares two other companies to establish a trend. These are all examples of good, independent journalism, not "dependent" sources. -BC1278 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Keep Looks pretty well-sourced to me, with CNN, Reuters, and Forbes. They are also listed on the EPA sustainable food management page, for what that's worth. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See my comment above. The CNN, Reuters and Forbes articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing the updated notability guidelines, I don't see anything that would discount the reliable sources listed in the article. The two criteria for independent coverage in the policy are independence of the author, which is clearly met, as these are top-tier media corporations with no financial dependence on EcoScraps, and independence of the content. While much of the material in the articles does come from interviews, that is not the same as getting the material from press releases. While Inc.com is specifically mentioned in the policy, the author of that piece is a staff editor, not a non-staff contributor. (Forbes is also mentioned, but I can't see that article since it is behind a paywall to tell if it would qualify under the policy.) PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a well-sourced article, as illustrated by PohranicniStraze. The subject is main topic in numerous reliable-sourced articles. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the company is probably notable but the way it has been written is overtly promotional and reads like a company website or PR piece. It needs some serious copyediting to remove the fluff and overtly promotional phrases such as "Using Ecoscraps, stores dispose of their food waste, except meat and diary, at no cost, a waste hauling and landfill service that stores previously paid for". I doubt very much that a volunteer editor would have written such phrases. This highlights the difficulty of dealing with paid editing that uses Wikipedia as free and permenant advertising space for services and products and people. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the author of the content suggested, for further work. Sometimes AfD does serve as the most effective impetus for cleanup. This is especially true since one of the reasons for deleting as promotional is that the article cannot be fixed, and sometimes the original contributor or another editor is able to show that it can. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Since you advocate "draftify" and RHaworth, an admin who specializes in AfD, says I may User_talk:RHaworth/2018_Jun_28#Deletion_request "certainly edit in the mainspace while AfD discussion is open", despite my COI, do you object if I made the proposed Talk edits now, while the article is being discussed? The heavy amount of promotional content is clearly influencing the vote, and the problem can quickly be addressed with some substantial cuts. If two admins who do a lot of AfD say I can make the proposed changes now, then it won't create a problem for me later.BC1278 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
If you really want to follow RHaworth's advice you might want to go beyond cherrypicking what he said and also take into account this the issue with this article is the inherent notability of its subject: no amount of tinkering with the text can fix that. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He also said, more recently "looks like AfD was the best route for you: it may get a "keep" !vote without you doing anything!" Despite that, I'd like to make the changes to the article since some of it is promotional, for the reasons I explained above, and that's the primary objection of some editors here.BC1278 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Delete The Keep !votes above are clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the criteria for establishing notability. While the references provided are all tier-one reliable sources, they all fail to meet the criteria/interpretation for "independent" sources (clarified in the recently updated WP:NCORP guidelines). The references are not intellectually independent, relying extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources with no independent opinion/analysis as attributed to the journalist, or are based on routine announcements such as funding. These types of references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. This is a run-of-the-mill young company with normal advertorial-type "news" with company profiles, but is not intellectually independent as there is no independent opinion/analysis within the article itself. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and WP:SPIP. The article is entirely promotional, bordering on WP:G11, as in: "In 2013, the company announced its product line would be available at 1700 Target stores"!. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have already proposed a clean-up of the promotional language Talk:Ecoscraps#Request_Edits, including removing that specific sentence. It is inaccurate to say the cover story of the print edition of Inc. Magazine, in-depth features on CNNMoney.com and Forbes.com (staff written), and a trend story in Reuters is routine, a passing mention, or in some was not independent of the company.BC1278 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278.[reply]
Delete as per the clearer and stricter WP:NCORP guidelines. I originally said I thought this company was "probably" notable but the above arguments swayed me. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (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.