Talk:TerraCycle/Archives/2012

Keep?

I believe, the possible merits of the company notwithstanding, that this article on TerraCycle is not encyclopedic and is therefore a candidate for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents, '2 Companies'. If response on Talk pg is not sufficient, this article will be nominated for deletion using usual WP procedures. PBarak 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could please expand on what you mean by 'not encyclopedic'. I don't see any advertizing type messages in this article, it provides general information on the company and its business model. I would argue that the Facebook page, for example, is much more questionable in that sense. Jennifer Jones 12:04, 11 July 2006

Let's get straight to the WP policy on these things. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents, '2 Companies' says:

Companies

• Blatant advertising pages are subject to deletion
• Products that have been planned but not created yet, are not generally notable (exceptions to this include certain "future-tech" items, such as fusion reactors, and certain very well-known products that have been announced but are not yet on sale, such as the Playstation 3 and such like)
• Companies listed on the stock exchange, and Fortune 1000 (and equivalent) companies are notable
• Companies directly reported as significant players in major news events are generally notable

More detail at WP:CORP as to 'Notability (companies and corporations). I see that the TerraCycle article has already been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. PBarak 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This page does not contain 'blatant advertising', and I am not sure how other categories mentioned above can be applicable as reasons for deletion in this case. Polinar 18:33, 11 July 2006

I've been fence-sitting on this article, nearly prodded it, then decided to see what other folks thought about it. What would make me want to support the article is to see some of the articles written about the company. How about linking them into the article rther than links to other WP articles? Notability could be there if it was proven that this company is significant in the green/re-cycling/conservation field. At the moment I don't think it's unfair to call it spam WP:SPAM --Richhoncho 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have added a link to the Inc. article on the Terracycle page. If you happen to see this first you can get to it quickly right here. It is the most recent article and one of the most in-depth articles that has been writen about TerraCycle. I have also sourced the information on the wiki TerraCycle article. Because I have fixed the sourcing problem am I allowed to remove the Source tag from the main page?

Also in terms of blatant advertising, it has been my goal to remain extremely careful and in some cases scrupulous about keeping the content of this article unbiased and informative. I beleive that after doing some research it will become apparent that Terracycle is in fact generally notable. --Stevenger 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The following is quoted directly from the wikipedia guideline of what makes a company or corporation generally notable WP:CORP:

"A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes:

• Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
• Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications."

There was a third guideline that did not apply to TerraCycle. However, TerraCycle does meet both of these mentioned criteria. Several "non-trivial published works" are mentioned in the Terracycle article. --74.12.110.152 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Though it was Colonel Cow who marked the article as needing cleanup so it didn't read like an advertisement, I will note that the TerraCycle article was largely written by Stevenger beginning on Jun 29 2006, who made few other contributions to wikipedia. Further, Stevenger may be identical to Steven Germain (see http://www.terracycle.net/people.htm) who appears to have been a 2006 summer intern at TerraCycle.PBarak 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And, just for fun, Polinar (above) is likely Polina Rogozhina, also a TerraCycle 2006 Associate mentioned on http://www.terracycle.net/people.htm. Can't tell who Jennifer Jones is but that wp:user's only contribution to wikipedia seems to be the single TerraCycle discussion comment above, as did 74.12.110.152. In short, the TerraCycle article appears to have been written by TerraCycle, which is the reason that it reads like an advertisement, as Colonel Cow noted. PBarak 19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I too noticed that as I tagged the article, so while this article probably should not be deleted (as it is notable), it would benefit heavily from extensive review and editing by NPOV editors --Colonel Cow 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

negative environmental footprint

I think this company is worthy of having an article, particularly because of their sincere effort to have a "negative environmental footprint".-69.87.204.79 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TCimage.jpg

Image:TCimage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)