Talk:Plastech Engineered Products

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm a little confused as to how a company with 1.7 Billion dollars in annual sales is "not notable".

The bottom end of the Fortune 1000 is 1.5 Billion.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/full_list/901_1000.html

Its the largest women owned business in michigan, and has over 7,000 employees.

Companies like Viewsonic, Nasdaq, and Bob Evans Restaurants are all smaller than Plastech based on annual sales, the measure used by Fortune to establish its list. 67.171.221.191 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROD

Can I refer you to Editing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Number of employees, turnover, etc. aren't grounds to establish notability.

[edit] Response to PROD=

Thanks for the tip dude. ITs all the more puzzling seeing as how the Plastech article has FOUR secondary sources, Viewsonic has NONE, Nasdeq has six, and and bob Evan's NONE.

Plastech's secondary sources include a little outfit called The New York Times, the respected weekely Crain's Detroit Business, a local Michigan TV station WZZM, and the biggest plastics trade journal Plastics News. Redpected secondary sources, just like WP says.

Like I said, if you really cared about WP you'd be deleting those articles, not Plastech's. Do you work for a competitor or something? 67.171.221.191 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you just put a stub tab on it? Its obvious your WP concerns are bogus. What do you have against Plastech?

Never heard of this company, don't work for a rival and not even based in the USA. Comparison to other articles doesn't justify this one. There are many articles that need merging, splitting, improving, deleting, etc. Why not follow the guidelines and improve this article? --Arthana 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, why not use stub tag? That would get the improvement you seek. Its not a perfect article, but its perfectly legitimate according to WP. Sure it could use more, but four secondary sources is enough according to WP. Stub it. Stub it. Stub it. 67.171.221.191

You are of course free to add the stub tag yourself if you think it will get the desired result.--Arthana 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Plastechlogo.jpg

Image:Plastechlogo.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)