" 

 :Well, it was corporate spam, but the company was clearly notable so deletion was not the right response that's true. Content should be separated from contributor, yes, but in this case, however, the attention was salutary.    

 ::Eusebeus, Please be careful about how you term things less you have proof.  Are there some reliable sources to attribute corporate spam?  Very respectfully,    

 ::Being that no money or favor was exchanged for the creation of the Arch Coal article, and indeed that the Arch Coal enterprise was completely unaware of its provenance, it is probably quite unfair to describe the original article as ""corporate spam"".  You should redact, , even if you think archiving a position to the contrary, magically makes the matter go away.     

 :""...posted by a banned user."" I take exception to that statement. I would like to think that I'm a well respected member of this project I know I have never been banned.  
 :In addition, I also take exception that this was ever spam.  It was not. I was very careful to check the sources, check the wording and make sure there wasn't anything glaringly missing.  Check the original article as I posted it.  It would fit in well with the thousands of other corporate stubs we have floating all over the project, and as far as stubs go this one was excellent. -  //WRE)  
 *Without impugning the good faith of any of the above, the fact remains that Arch Coal is notorious (in the traditional sense of the word) for its mining practices which have attracted a good deal of attention and criticism. If I wrote an article on Syncrude that made no mention of the questionable environmental practices of the company, I think it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that the anodyne result could be called into question. Perhaps spam is a loaded term, but it seems to fit rather well here. Either way,  encyclopedic treatment requires that the subjects include all aspects for which it is notable. An article on Arch Coal that omits in its entirety the company's mining practices, as did the original, is on its face not meeting the requirements of an encyclopedic treatment. That may not be spam, but it's not much better.    
 **If you have sources for the above, please improve the article by broadening the coverage.  But your characterisation, (in contravention to Jimbo apologising for using the same term) and subsequent refusal to answer what you meant when asked about it by multiple people (), is not helpful at all. A casual reader would not assume that you were not ""impugning the good faith of any of the above"", despite disclaimers. ++: /  
 Sheesh. I already added it in Lar as indicated by 68; what's your issue here? Additional material may be here: 
 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr;=&q;=%22arch+coal%22+mountain+top+removal&btnG;=Search 
 such as:  
 *http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/163 
 Although the coal industry is regulated by the state and national governments, the regulators, it is argued, have been captured by Big Coal. The result is one of the most egregious and little-known instances of environmental degradation taking place in the United States today. 
 *Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future By Jeff Goodell, Mariner Books, 2007 ISBN 0618872248, 9780618872244 (e.g. p.44) 

 From a humanist perspective, and following a provisional distinction between pastoral and georgic, we might map the interrelation of aesthetic and economic environmental arguments. To take what is for me a local example: Many West Virginians are appalled at mountaintop removal mining, in which coal operators blast off the top of a mountain to get at the coal seam below.59 Our objections may originate in aesthetic revulsion—mountaintop removal is ugly—but given the development of sophisticated reclamation techniques, coal operators can present their course of action as beautiful in the long run. In fact, Arch Coal Inc., the leading practitio