Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental impact of K-Cups

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 merge to Keurig. The strongest arguments against stand-alone retention are WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and, assuming the article was genericized in its current form, WP:UNDUE. I picked Keurig as the merge target because a box must be filled in, but that's obviously not set in stone and content is free to be merged elsewhere as anyone feels is appropriate, with the consensus at the various destination(s) determining how much of that content to integrate, if any. slakr^\ talk / 05:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of K-Cups

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator. Nearly the entire article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; not to mention WP:UNDUE and unfair (and potentially libelous?) focus on a single brand/product/company. Softlavender (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Keurig. The topic is notable, as per [1], [2], [3], [4], but a separate article isn't really necessary as per WP:SIZERULE. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, none of those sources are cited in the article. The entire article, with the exception of these sources ([5], [6], [7]), is completely WP:OR. None of the other sources even mention K-cups (except WSJ which is just a standard stock-market report and has no mention of anything environmental). All of the science stuff is off-topic OR and merely part of an undergraduate chemistry assignment, which this article is. Softlavender (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources are used in the article to verify content (including the Plastics News one I linked above): [8], [9], [10]. The first two I have listed in this comment cover the topic rather specifically. I feel that a selective merge would best benefit the encyclopedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the three sources I mentioned and linked above (I did not recall, on checking the article, that one of the items you linked was the Plastics News -- this is the problem with student articles: they don't link sources). Anyway, to repeat, except for those three sources, the entire rest of article is completely WP:OR. None of the other sources even mention K-cups (except WSJ which is just a standard stock-market report and has no mention of anything environmental). All of the science stuff is off-topic OR and merely part of an undergraduate chemistry assignment, which this article is. Softlavender (talk)

FYI I understand what you're saying, and aspects of the article that pertain to all such plastics and don't refer to K-Cups themselves would be omitted from such a merge (as per my !vote); the merge would only encompass material that directly covers K-Cups per the sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided The question is whether this very narrow a topic is appropriate; if we think it is , there are enough sources. Topics like this case study may be suitable for term paper topics, but not for encyclopedia articles. One of the more difficult aspects of the education program is it can require extensive WP experience to select topics that will certainly be notable to avoid students working in good faith only to have their work rejected. Substantial good faith work did go into this article. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with possibly letting it stand as is is all of the WP:OR. All, repeat ALL, of the science is completely WP:OR -- none of the sources in the sections "K-Cup Degradation" (and all of its subsections) and "Microplastics in the Environment" even mention K-cups. It's bad enough when experienced Wikipedians or experienced professionals engage in OR on Wikipedia; it's even worse when we have undergraduates engaging in lengthy OR and making who knows how many unfounded and inaccurate claims. This is even above and beyond the fact that it's an WP:UNDUE and singled-out article on a single company/brand/product, which seems to be against all kinds of Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unusually for AFD we have a thoughtful deletion nomination for a thoughtful article. I'm hampered because I know hardly anything about these cups and am unfamiliar with the US terminology. Could the article be renamed as Environmental impact of polystyrene coffee capsules, or something like that? Maybe plastic rather than polystyrene. The text would need to be thoroughly copy-edited to suit with K-Cups becoming merely one example. I think the references may well support such a topic. Thincat (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've addressed two major issues: The article is titled and targeted at a single item/brand, yet the science (which purportedly, since it is a college assignment, is the meat of the article) is generic and non-focused and applies to numerous kinds of plastics and plastic items. I'm not a fan of education-program articles -- it's hard enough for editors who know what they are doing to create a decent and accurate substantive article -- and so far I've found that very few of them have the encyclopedic notability and scope (even beyond the issue of accuracy) that Wikipedia needs. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article is the ultra-bland and glib homework assignment. user:Softlavender describes the problem convincingly - its a generic essay. The graphics all seem to be copied from some print source. IMHO, this kind of article is an abuse of Wikipedia as a parking place for homework. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's a homework assignment" is not a valid reason for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Valid" isn't a Wikipedia policy; notability however would be. "Cleanup" would have to entail removing all of the science: i.e. the sections "K-Cup Degradation" (and all of its subsections) and "Microplastics in the Environment", as none of the sources even mention K-cups. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-depth explanation of how plastic decays or doesn't decay belongs in more general articles about that topic; likewise specifics about K-Cups can really be dealt with in a few sentences of the Keurig article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Cut the polymer photochemistry and merge the remainder with single-serve coffee container. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That at least would remedy some of the WP:UNDUE problem of the singling out of one company among dozens. Might even be able to keep some of the science alluded to if any of the citations mention single-serve coffee containers. Of course, this also all hinges on how accurate this homework assignment is. The problem still remains that all of the non-science text and sources are referring solely to K-cups, because for some reason this student decided to focus on one brand. All in all, we still have the problem of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a COI) - Given my link to the Ed Program it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in one way or the other, but if this is closed as a Merge, I would suggest that the sections on degradation of the various plastic components be merged into the relevant articles on those plastics, since this article includes details that are lacking from those articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's agreed by everyone here that the article as it stands is a problem and cannot stand as is, yet there is no precise consensus on what should be done about the myriad problems in the article and the myriad problems the article presents, one solution would be userfying the article. That way it would stand for whatever purposes the homework assignment purported. Every part of the article has problems though, in terms of Wikipedia mainspace: the WP:UNDUE singling out of one brand among dozens; the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of the science; the pasting of the science onto a specific item (single-serve coffee containers); the lack of expertise on the science (we don't even know if the science is correct even for the various plastics listed -- it would have to be vetted by a resident Wikipedia expert). While I'm on the subject, I'd like to repeat something I said on another AfD for these homework assignments, which was deleted when that AfD was deleted by request of the student who posted the now-deleted homework article: If Wikipedia is going to be a repository of homework assignments, we should immediately re-name it Homeworkpedia, and give up all pretenses of being, or even attempting to be, an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2014 (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.