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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:38, 14 June 2011

Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India

(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]

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 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 It's basically an unsalvageable opinion piece and original rersearch in its current form and probably out of date as well.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]
Comment. Copyvio template added until we have confirmation of permission. We can not simply assume the person who added this is linked to the website we need permission to use it either through OTRS or with an appropriate statement on the website. Will leave the contributor a message explaining this. See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Technical Copyvio at Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Dpmuk (talk) 16:53, 13 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]

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]