Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrintReleaf

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 delete. Michig (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrintReleaf

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NORG - all coverage is promotional content, either rehashed press releases or explicitly promotional content (one of the five apparently independent sources begins "Press Release"). No significant coverage, no reliable, independent secondary sources. PROD removed. ninety:one 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking time to look this over and consider this article. I'll defer to you guys as I'm really a newbie here and learning the ropes. I've searched high and low for references beyond those cited and coming up short. An interesting situation is that the mainstream media under covers climate change (at heart what PrintReleaf is addressing) - (see “Why are the US new media so bad at covering climate change?” The Guardian, March 22, 2019; subtitle is: “The US news media devote startlingly little time to climate change - how can newsrooms cover it in ways that will finally resonate with their audiences?”) Link to article: www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/why-is-the-us-news-media-so-bad-at-covering-climate-change.

I launched into this article thinking, and still thinking this is notable company by the sheer impact of their work. But from what I read this alone doesn't meet the criteria. Just to note... PrintReleaf addresses a massive scale of office paper use, which is on average 10,000 sheets per year per worker - over 2.2 trillion pages a year. The growth in paper use is some 22% a year now. The U.S. uses about 68 million trees a year to generate paper and paper products (Record Nations - "How Much Paper is Used in One Day?” Morgan O’Mara, November 12, 2020).

On the PrintReleaf side at their eight reforestation projects in priority areas (particularly Brazil and Madagascar) to date 2 million plus trees have been planted offsetting 17,138,820,402 letter pages / 85,473 tons of paper. And are doing this in a verifiable, scientific, careful way.

Anyway, thanks for reading through this and again thanks for your good work. At the end of the day, if you see anyway to publish this, that'd be great, but I think I really understand the rationale.

Have a great Holiday! And a fantastic 2021. Cheers! Kansas19 (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely WP:UPE spam; creator blocked for spamming. MER-C 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly-veiled spam, sourced to the type of PR-based refbombing that is commonplace in such submissions. Sourcing does not establish notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 26 December 2020 (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.