Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India

Add links
Source: 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 Userfy to User:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. v/r - TP 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India

Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copy and pasted from [www.almitrapatel.com/docs/055.doc]; contested CSD; it's not an encylopedic article; it's more like a combination between advertisement and how-to-guide. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 12:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not easily fit into any CSD categories, but could have been PRODed (probably also contested). This article is an essay or an academic paper previously written by the article creator and is a download .doc from his/her website. Wikipedia is not a place to expose ecological issues or to promote ecological ideas or solutions. The article is original research, fails at WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTOPINION. Although well intended, it is therefore not encyclopedic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright concerns - now resolved
  • Comment It seems to me that it fits into G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. The author's website, which hosts this article as a word doc is clearly marked on the home page "Copyright 2007 Almitra H. Patel. All rights are reserved." There is no evidence of an OTRS ticket releasing the copyright, plus it was also published in EnviroNews - Newsletter of ISEB India, Vol. 9 No. 4 - October 2003 with no evidence of a compatible free license. In my view the editor who removed the Db-g12 with edit summary "remove copy vio tagging as this is obviously the same person" was in error. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right there. I think we were going on the statement she made at Talk:Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but statements like that are not sufficient and never have been. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. To me, it's quite unambiguous on the subject. Even so, I've asked a copyright expert to give a second opinion on this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Userfy. If per chance it cannot be speedied, it should be deleted on the grounds cited by Kudpung. It's basically an unsalvageable opinion piece and original rersearch in its current form and probably out of date as well. It was originally published 8 years ago. If the author is serious about wanting to contribute to Wikipedia on this topic, and I believe she's sincere and has the best intentions, then the best option would be for her to write a new article on Recycling in India (preferably as a user space draft), properly referenced to reliable sources, and not based solely on this one unreferenced article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've made a start on at least formatting the article per the Wikipedia Manual of Style and have had a chance to read it carefully. In addition to the major problems of non-neutral point of view and lack of referencing, the article is based on the recycling situation in India as it was 8 years ago when this piece was first published in EnviroNews. The article is so full of non-specific time contructs like "now", "may soon be", "recent", "currently", "not yet", "only last year" etc. that the job of re-writing this so that it is accurate, up-to-date and no longer potentially misleading is pretty huge. It really needs to be worked on outside of article space first. This is an interesting subject and definitely worth having on Wikipedia once these major problems have been sorted out. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may be not be the right place to ask, but as an observer, it seems like this article might still be a good candidate for inclusion as a reference in the existing Plastic recycling article (where earlier I removed a See Also link to it, after the article had already been pulled, on the basis that there was no article at the link placed). Is there a good reason not to use it as a reference to expand that article? Would either the original site or the one it was also published on be more appropriate for that citation, if at all? duff
I think it might be OK for that, but perhaps use the published form (EnviroNews - Newsletter of ISEB India, Vol. 9 No. 4 - October 2003) rather than linking to the word doc. You could also ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gone ahead as you suggested and added some information from the published version to Plastic recycling, about the dosing of bitumen with recycled plastics to make better roads, and I've fully cited that version there. It looks like a reliable source to me and if challenged, I'll accept RsN's thinking on it. Thanks for the good advice and the opportunity to help a little more than just deleting an empty link. duff 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article on plastic recycling in India could have merit. But a need for article is too much like an opinion piece. The page is not a copyright infringement, but is a problem due to incompatible licenses, so intent of the author is confused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment we have to treat it as a copyright infringement as we have no way of knowing that the person who uploaded it is the copyright holder. Until such time as that is confirmed or the source website changes their licence (in which case who uploaded it is moot) we have to err on the side of caution and treat it as a copyright infringement. Dpmuk (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment As the Ghost writer for the article in debate, I am most apologetic for the mistakes. I have been commissioned by the original author / the website owner to put this material onto wikipedia. Yes, a need for title seems much like an opinion, and I shall change that. However, the comments about this not being a place to promote ecological solutions? They are not solutions, but practically implemented, successfully running and well-founded in research ideas that need to be implemented into national legal frameworks to outline better practices for Solid waste management and Plastics Recycling. As for original research, it may certainly qualify but as it has been implemented, communicated, accepted regionally, can it not now be considered fit as encyclopedic knowledge? Or knowledge that could and should find its way into policy. Patel almitra (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani[reply]
  • Comment Don't worry, a lot of new contributors to Wikipedia don't quite realize the sometimes complicated restrictions that have to be placed on articles, and why. The three key ones which apply here are Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research, and Verifiability. To comply with these, the article would have to be so substantially re-written, that it would be better to start afresh. For example, the sections Where NOT to use bio-polymers, Eco-Labelling needs reform, and New Legislation take a very marked and particular point of view. I happen to agree with it myself, but it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. To comply with the other two policies, extensive referencing from independent published sources would be required. In other words, the article can't reference itelf. Here are just a few examples of the many assertions which would require independent sourcing:

    "Indians have a remarkably small ecological footprint compared to citizens in advanced countries." (followed by various statistics)

    "On the technical front, some research is currently going on to make PVCs degradable through the blending of biopolymer components. This is disastrous."

    "Micro-packaging sachets are the most needed and most promising mass market for biopolymers."

    "A money-making racket is going on in cities like Pune, where degradable bags are required to be used for biomedical waste management."

    There's also a problem with the time constructs, words and phrases like "is going on", "now", "may soon be", "recent", "currently", etc.. These have no concrete time reference. The article was published 8 years ago, making these phrases meaningless, and also making the assertions containing them potentially out of date. I personally found the article very interesting. I'm wondering if a more appropriate place to put it would be Wikiversity, another a Wikimedia Foundation project which does accept material like this. Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you Voceditenore. I am very grateful for your constructive criticism. Yes, the time frames do seem too fluid in the light of the article having been published 8years ago. I shall tighten the editing, and try to dig up the external resources that had been used. The material having been part of talks, and not scientific papers, had omitted the references, without knowing that someday they would be needed. I shall exhume them again. Patel almitra (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani[reply]
  • Comment. It's a little difficult to know who I'm talking to, Almitra Patel or Devayani, her 'ghost writer'.;-) Anyhow, I think you are both seriously underestimating how much work is going to be required if this article is to be kept on Wikipedia. This isn't a case of a few tweaks. It needs a complete re-write from top to bottom. I suggest that this article be userfied. That is, moved to User:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling in India (or something similar) where the draft can be worked on and experienced editors can give you advice on when the re-drafted article is suitable for moving back into article space. Voceditenore (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Voceditenore: The whole time you have been talking to the Ghost writer only :) Spooky huh? I understand the work required in uphauling the article, and am keen on fulfiling the Wikipedia standards. It will be a great learning experience. I am also amenable to the suggestion of moving this article into a Userfy section, I could do with all the help I can get. Thank you so much for your comments so far. I am glad you enjoyed the article, I shall persevere in publishing better ones in the future. (As the author had put in so much work on the material, we were unwilling to edit the article actively before. We had not realised Wiki's standards as readers :P)

Patel almitra (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits![reply]

  • Reply Actually, pages should not be moved pre-emptively to user space in the middle of a discussion. The AfD needs to be closed as userfy and an administrator should move it. I'm going to temporarily move it back. Then when the AfD closes, an admistrator can move back to your user space. In the meantime, go ahead and work on the article in its original place. It may be that you can sufficiently improve it before the AfD closes and it can be kept in article space with a new name, which again, an administrator ought to do. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoops! I see that you have now moved the page back into article space under a new title Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. I've fixed the double re-direct, and adjusted the links on this AfD page and at the new page. But please don't make anymore page moves until the AfD is closed. The current new title will eventually have to be fixed if the AfD decision is to keep rather than userfy. It should be Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India to conform with capitalisation of titles and the standard spelling of biopolymers on Wikipedia. but let an adminstrator sort it out. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns - now resolved
  • Letter to the Copyright Board

I hereby affirm that [I, Almitra Patel am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Work on Solid waste Management in India which are in the form of essays under the titles of Waste Policy in India Plastics Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers articles, at http://www.almitrapatel.com/swm.htm, and http://www.almitrapatel.com/plastics_roads.htm] I agree to [publish these works under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (almitrapatel@rediffmail.com)] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Copyright Holder for http://www.almitrapatel.com/)] [DATE (14/06/2011)] Patel almitra (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani[reply]

  • Comment This needs to be sent as an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Posting here is not enough. Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certify that OTRS permission is confirmed in ticket 2011061410006865. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bearian, for your vote of confidence. We shall strive to make better edits and meet the standards Wiki demands. Shall look at the articles you have mentioned and see where this one can be slotted in. Patel almitra (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits![reply]

  • KEEP - This s the only one article on "recycling in India", a country that holds 20% of this planets population. I have no clue why people are saying delete it, because it is not 100% accurate,not grammatically correct etc!! Also I'm puzzled when people say , 'Wiki is not a place to expose ecological issues or to promote ecological ideas or solutions', even in the context of recycling. Ok, put a 30-point size warning at the top about the possible inaccuracies and incompleteness, I dont mind, but KEEP the article, until another factually correct one can replace it. Points like '...worse for railway meals, where all such cups get thrown out the windows all along the tracks'(may not be an issue in western countries should be a concern for both politicians and scientists in India. Discussion on Polystyrene issue points to the global ecological concerns of the material. At any cost KEEP it, but encourage improvements and experiences from different cities of the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.97.241 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2011 (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/Plastic_Recycling_and_the_need_for_Bio-polymers_in_India&oldid=1079652798"