Recompose: Even ignoring the self-promotion, it seems that Recompose fails to meet the notability criteria.  Kitzing ( talk ) 23:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but tone down promotional content .   References 6, 10, and 12 (Seattle Times) establish WP:SIGCOV and are both independent and non-passing in nature.   I agree that the article seems rather self-serving and should be trimmed down considerably.   But the company does have detailed coverage in secondary sources.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WeirdNAnnoyed , I have concerns with regards to the Seattle Times coverage by Kiley.  Can you point clearly to a passage independent of people directly affiliated with the company, other than the short quote from Van Slyke (who said the emissions and odors from NOR are expected to be minimal compared to other operations they review, including cremations, demolitions of asbestos-filled buildings and marijuana cultivation. Recompose’s air permit requires no visible emissions from the facility, adequate filters, no detectable odors and independent review by a third party every three months. )?  That segment does not seem secondary to me.  Or, perhaps a second source?  The BBC coverage mentioned by Sionk (as currently cited in the article) seem to be entirely quotes from Spade and Carpenter-Boggs, so I'm excluding it from my consideration for now.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not quite sure I understand...Reference 10 provides lots of background information and analysis that is independent of the subject, which is the definition of a secondary source.   There are some quotes in there, but it's not an interview.   The two paragraphs beginning with "The Recompose process..." give a summary of what the company does without relying on quotes and without sounding overly promotional.   I guess I don't know what you mean by "independent of people directly affiliated with the company".   Of course the articles get their information from people directly affiliated with the company; that doesn't mean they aren't reliable secondary sources.  If those pieces had consisted of nothing but direct quotes or on-the-spot, breaking-news type coverage, then that would be different.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how those paragraphs could be independent or secondary.  We could take it to RSN ?  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 00:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say there is a little secondary coverage in that article.  The second clause of the Van Slyke quote could be that, and the paragraph immediately before the two you selected covering pricing would be considered secondary as well, but I don't see any analysis in those two paragraphs specifically.  As for independence, WP:ORGIND 's requirement for intellectual independence doesn't necessarily explicitly say that it's stronger than "sufficient paraphrasing to be out of quote marks and still not be plagiarism," but it still very strongly implies it.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , on the basis the company has clearly attracted more than passing interest, in a number of major news outlets, and internationally (BBC).  Sionk ( talk ) 09:27, 24 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep