Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep Yasht101 02:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program

[edit]
Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find it hard to find notability in this. I see no reason to believe that these recycling bins are any different than millions spread thru out the world. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The topic is about the national-level recycling program, not just the bins that are used! Please see my !vote below, in which I have included many reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (from author): The article refers to a program run by the entire U.S. Federal government, not just a bin in a single place, as if being one of millions. There could be perhaps 100 similar articles about national-post recycling programs in other nations. The wp:Notability comes from continued mention (many years) in multiple reliable sources, whereas if the coverage had spanned only 1 year, or 1 source, then that would indicate limited notability. Instead, there are other sources which estimate the energy savings and the reduction of tons of paper which would have gone into landfills, if not recycled by the U.S. program. So, the notability has even increased over the years, and U.S. postal recycling has continued in 2012. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the same could be said about thousands of municipal recycling pick up programs thruout the country. In terms of significance and environmental benefits, I don't see a lot of difference here. The coverage is pretty much routine. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the classic bad merge vote. Where, in USPS, should this material go? The article doesn't have a single section that would be appropriate for this material. Creating a section would be a classic example of undue weight for what is a minor part of what the post office does. As I say to nearly all merge voters, where and how in the target article should this be merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that a merge should only be done it it does not give undue WP:BALANCE and it does seem that it is difficult to ene squeeze in a sentence about the topic into United States Postal Service. A better alternatives is merge with Recycling in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. And I don't support a merge. It is not sufficiently significant content for the main article. Where the material might go is as an example in Paper recycling. Or perhaps we should have an article on Recycling efforts of the US Government and associated entitites DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Merging to Paper recycling is a bit WP:CSBish. Merging to Recycling in the United States is better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is 14,000 ghits. Are you feeling ok... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A national-level recycling program that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This topic passes WP:GNG:
  • Koch, Wendy (March 1, 2010). "Postal Service: Stop! We'll help you recycle that mail". USA Today. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Hayton, Tasha (March 5, 2010). "Dallas-Fort Worth post offices slowly offering recycling bins". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Herron, Joyce (Acting Postmaster) (March 16, 2009). "Letter: Post office starts recycling program". Columbia Missourian. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Johnson, Jim (February 16, 2010). "USPS expands recycling program to 2,500 additional sites". Waste & Recycling News. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • "Recycling in post offices increases". American Recycler (newspaper). April 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Bingaman, Brian (January 22, 2010). "Not all post offices on board with USPS recycling program". Montgomery News. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post_Office_Box_Lobby_Recycling_program&oldid=1099463067"