Deletion of Electronic Recycling Association

Comment: sources fail short of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: While the article appears to be ''worded'' neutrally as TheSawTooth says (and I understand their newbie instinct to keep their "first major contribution"), let's not keep an article similar to a company with in-depth coverage while academic sources do not discuss the operations or any other significant roles of the company in the same depth (atleast yet or as yet demonstrated). I find  the only right argument for this (also suggest it to TST and other contributors of the article to read it through) as it says {{xt|deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.}}. Given that this is a non-profit, there are news reports based on its work but this is not wikinews, it is wikipedia (an encyclopedia). Similarly, Nikthestunned's version of the article focuses mainly on a controversy making it  instead of discussing the non-profit itself. Given that Nikthestunned appears to have recognized this factor in his own nomination, it is best to delete the article. If the company acquires more notability in the terms of independent scholarly news  coverage (not more press releases alone), an editor will eventually create an article about it (with no prejudice to TheSawTooth). However, it does not look like that it will happen any time soon. To preempt any back and forth discussion on my comment, I'd note in advance that I have reached this opinion even after ignoring the edits by IPs, COI or other behaviour allegations (or any non content discussions for that matter). Disclaimer: I found this AFD via TheSawTooth's contributions history after I saw this come up at ANI, but I have no dispute with him / her so I find it ok to drop my two cents on this apparently heated discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:COATRACK||WP:RS)

Comment: On the surface there looks like a lot of coverage, but looking at the references in detail it seems that the coverage is sparse and routine for the most part (and many references are unrelated to the company). The Wall Street Journal article caught my attention but the link is dead and it hasn't been catalogued by Archive.org. I searched for the article title and found a press release by that title. I suspect that someone has attempted to pass off a press release as the WSJ. In short, I just don't see the significant coverage to warrant inclusion per  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  and doesn't seem very notable in any way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)