Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toxic 100

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 Political Economy Research Institute. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic 100

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

The page has been marked for expansion since 2008 (check the talk page) and that the only sources present are from the university that comes up with the list. Meatsgains (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Political Economy Research Institute who promulgates the non-notable "award". Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lead includes 10 random companies under the Toxic 100 list. It doesn't make sense why the creator of the page decided to choose these companies to incorporate in the lead. If the page is to be merged, then it should only list the top 5 or 10 polluters in the lead rather than a random selection of companies. Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2013 (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.