Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/RKO Industries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good afternoon,

I would like to include you in my most recent communication with Alex regarding "Plastic recycling":

I realise you are clearly associated with RKO Industries. Adding external links to any articles related to plastic for this companies website is considered as spam and is against wikipedia guilines. Please refrain from putting multiple links to each associated article. Alex 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alex,

Is there a reason for you not having deleted the following sentence and reference within the "Plastic recycling" article?

"In Israel successful trials have shown that plastic films recovered from mixed municipal waste streams can be recycled into useful products.[2]"

Knowing this will help me in my reasoning during further communication with you (and others) regarding plastics and recycling articles as well as my contributions.

Recycledagplastic 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this sentence & reference gives a pictorial illustration of an example of a proceedure of how plastic is recycled. It does not link to the top level promotional page of the site. Ideally the main article would include a pictorial illustration of plastic recycling in action.

Many of the recycling articles were previously consigned to the process of collecting recyclable materials, which is clearly not recycling. Also the Israeli plant manages to reclaim plastics of a recyclable quality from mixed wastes- this is rare in waste management. Hence I believe this is of note. If you disagree with this feel free to delete the reference & sentence.

Again I reiterate the point that I am happy to back inclusions related to your company if they do not appear simply in an advertising/marketing/spam format, they need to give value to Wikipedia on the whole. Recycling is an important area which is neglected in Wikipedia.--Alex 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, Thank you for your communication. Regards, Recycledagplastic 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Alex 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, during previous editing sessions I've found myself having completed an edit only (then) to realize that I'd forgotten to log in as "Recycledagplastic." So, some of my edits are credited to IP 65.40.36.66. If you look at the "Plasticulture" article (and others), for example, you will see that my edits aren't only confined to including "RKO." I am a member of the RKO enterprise, however, my purpose is not to "spam" wiki. I do, however, hope to contribute information regarding a US domestic enterprise that is successfully recycling tens of millions of pounds of materials (annually) which, historically in the US, have primarily been either landfilled or burned on-sight at farms. The reason these materials haven't previously been removed from the waste stream and processed domestically in the US is because of their high level of soil and plant material contamination; particularly plastic mulch film. Our company's niche is processing this extremely hard to clean ag film. I find what we are doing with this particular material to be noteworthy because I can't find any other company whose staple feedstock consists of this contaminated mulch film, whereas it easily comprises 95+% of our resource. I am aware of very contaminated mulch film being containerized and sent overseas; primarily China. I am also aware of domestic US companies processing either relatively clean ag film semi-regularly, or very contaminated film seldomly. RKO has utilized readily available industrial recycling technology and continuously modified it over the course of 4 years. This has resulted in us being able to do what very few claim to do. "Florida Trend" magazine featured an article on our company in Oct. 2004. "American Vegetable Grower" magazine directs their readers to our website (along with six others) in an article on recycling drip tape in their Sept. 2006 issue. The Ft. Myers Newspress featured an article on us in May 2006 and again in June 2006. Before I began my effort in Wiki, I didn't find a single reference to the successful recycling of plastic mulch, drip tape or silage bags within these respective articles. Nor did I find any reference to the successful, or otherwise, recycling of materials in the practice of plasticulture. Still, I have read through ample search engine results regarding very contaminated mulch film not being a suitable material for effective or efficient processing. I forget if it was you or "Trialanderrors" who had undertaken an editing project concerned with articles relating to waste management/recycling. Whoever, it would seem that they would be interested in this which I've written today. However, perhaps not. Sincerely, Recycledagplastic 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate any feedback. Recycledagplastic 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello recycledagplastic. I am the one who mentioned contributions to waste management and recycling (please see my user page & contributions if you are interested). In the initial AfD I highlighted my concerns. The article you posted read as a promotional piece for your company. In order for it to be accepted you would have to write a NPOV article in true wikipedia style, giving independent references to your claims. The majority of your edits have been related to RKO industries and all suggest you are promoting the company. I suggest you spend some time drafting an appropriate article that can be reviewed and posted if you get it in the right tone and format. I say for the third time, if you get a suitable article for wikipedia with verifiable claims I will support its creation.--Alex 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand your sentiment regarding the deleted article "RKO Industries."

On a tangential issue, I am trying to understand a uniformity of standards regarding your recent edits to the "Drip tape" article. I'm not sure I understand the reason you have chosen to remove my external link but allowed other external links to remain. It will help you to understand my confusion/exact point(s) if you read this communication between "Trials" and myself. As follows:

"(Regarding your and Alex's decisions made in the "Drip Tape" article) So, you consider external links with descriptions like "pioneer of drip irrigation since 1968" or "DRTS is the leading manufacturer of drip tape production lines" as well as links billing themselves as "World's Largest Selection" (all caps nonetheless)as objective, non-promotional, non-spam and without conflict of interest? Do you believe "seasoned objective editors" like yourself are the contributors of these external links? Or that articles in other categories have been edited by these contributors like "NetafimUSA?" Honestly? My external link simply included a company name and the description of "information about recycling Drip Irrigation Tape?" Is there a reason that my edit to include the sentence/fact that drip tape is a recyclable material hasn't been removed? And if it's because it's factual (which it is), is there a good reason that the link to support it was removed (considering the promotional links which were allowed to remain)? These are all valid points and questions. Please take the time to address them adequately. Regards, Recycledagplastic 21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I? ~ trialsanderrors 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wield the deletion sword you should use it fairly among all of those who contribute. You should also be willing to better educate those who contribute... especially if they take the time to put forth thoughtful, civil argument. Regards, Recycledagplastic 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think articles were created solely to promote a company you have every right to nominate them for deletion. Similarly if you spot content you consider spam you have every right to remove it from the article. This is what happened here, Alex consiered the article promotional, the community mostly agreed and I closed it as such. I don't see any obligation or even possibility for me to apply the same standard to all the 1.5 million articles we have. I can only apply the policies we have to the articles I close at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying. Would you be willing to quickly view the external links section of the "Drip tape" article and let me know if these links and descriptions are acceptable editing in your opinion? Sincerely,Recycledagplastic 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that the article lacks independent sourcing and depends too much on corporate material. ~ trialsanderrors 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

Alex, both you and "Trials" refer to me as trying to spam articles, but it has not been my intention. I would like to contribute appropriately within the plastics/waste man./recycling Wikipedia communities. Actually, I still have a (very) little editing work that remains within existing articles to date (as "Recycledagplastic" and IP "65.40.36.66"). I am earnestly learning through our communication. Do you see any discrepancy between the standard exercised in removing my external link on the "Drip Tape" article and the standard exercised in allowing the other external links (mentioned in the quote above) to remain?

Also, do find my recent edit to the "Plastic recycling" article appropriate?

Sincerely,Recycledagplastic 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe? Recycledagplastic 13:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)