Talk:Vigatec (Chile)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion about deleting or keeping article, OCT 2004

from VfD:

• Delete Delete - Commerical Advert, non-encyclopedic - single contributing author.
  • This article is as encyclopedic as any other article for any other company. Maybe it lacks more information (I realize that it is no so interesting at this moment), but I have seen other articles about U.S. companies and if this is deleted, the others should have been deleted a long time ago.--AAAAA 15:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I added info about their labor policies. Please check them out. Now it's a bit more interesting.--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete for crass commercialism. --Neschek 02:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • All I can say here is that it was not my intention(crass commercialism). Once in a while, I read or hear something about a particular company, and I contribute to it (or in this case, create an article).--AAAAA 15:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete: Having their logo put on us is an absolute no-no, for copyvio reasons if none other. However, it seems like a large wholesaler. They are not manufacturers, just wholesalers. I cannot assess how significant they are within their home nation, but at a certain size an NPOV article is warranted on companies. This is advertising and a general company cheer, of course, but it is the fact that the company is a bit small for a Fortune 500 type of representation that I say delete instead of cleanup. Geogre 04:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • About the logo, according to: Wikipedia:Fair use, corporate logos are FAIR USE. Every time I land (randomly or not) on a page of a company that has no logo, I upload and paste it to the page.
  • I am not sure about the size (I could not find sales figures on the Internet), but for what I read, it seems to me that they are the leading company in Chile in the areas of business they work on.
  • It is small for a U.S. Fortune 500, but it is my "guesstimate" that they probably would be included in a Chilean Fortune 500, if there was one.--AAAAA 15:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, since they're pretty large, but severe cleanup is needed to make it read less like an ad. Even more importantly, the logo should absolutely be removed. Are there any contributors with useful information to add? If there's a good reason that we can't get it up to standards, I'll change my vote, since the current article isn't worth much. Factitious 08:55, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you--AAAAA 15:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The article's looking a lot better now, so I'm changing my vote to a strong keep — not that that makes a difference in the counting. Factitious 23:42, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP. I created this article because I heard or read about this company somewhere, so I checked on the Internet for articles or news about it, and produced the article with the information I found. Maybe it is not "interesting" enough, but I think it deserves to stay, being a large company in Chile (I don't have sales figures, but I believe so). I spent maybe one hour in the research and the production of the article, and I won't die if it gets deleted, but I won't feel good either. The way I see Wikipedia is like this: Whenever I read or hear about ANYTHING, and I want to know more, I go to Wikipedia first (before using Google). Wikipedia usually has a short concise article, vs the million pages that google produces, containing repeated information. If I find an article, I read it. If the article is good enough, I learned what I needed to learn and that's it. If the article is shot, I "watch" it, to hopefully work on it in the future. If there's no article, I either write a note to work on it in the future, or I create a stub to work it slowly, depending on how much time I have at that moment. In general, I think that whatever was of enough interest for me to look for it in Wikipedia, DESERVES TO STAY. That's why I vote KEEP. I will try to improve the article to make it more interesting.--AAAAA 15:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• What prompted me to write this article in the first place were the "Interesting Labor oriented initiatives" of the company, which I intended to include in the article in the first place, but did not get to it until now. I especially liked their "second generation plan". Maybe some companies in the U.S. already do it, but I have not heard or read about it. This program seemed very appealing to me. So, if you voted "delete", please reconsider. Thank you.--AAAAA 15:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but willing to reconsider. Reads too much like a press release and that logo is way too large. Gamaliel 18:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have changed it a bit, added info about their labor oriented initiatives and logo is now small.--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Apparently non-notable company, largely non-encyclopedic content (everything past the TOC is uninteresting). Delete unless someone can show, in the article, why this company is notable -- and trim drastically even if they can (put the logo off to the side, especially). --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 23:58, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
  • I have changed it a bit, added info about their labor oriented initiatives and logo is now small.--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Fairly large company. Their labor policies are interesting, but need to be cleaned up to read less like a corporate flyer. — Gwalla | Talk 02:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the "keep" vote. I changed it a bit. Will keep working on it.--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oh man, AAAAA, are all of your articles borderline? Very weak keep as stated by Gwalla. Furthermore, AAAAA has shown a strong commitment to cleaning up articles in the past. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, CoolHandLuke. The articles you have seen might be borderline, because all the other "interesting" ones are already written. As time passes, Wikipedia has more and more of everything. Furthermore, I have worked on many others that nobody has complained about.
  • I am trying to get more info about the company, but it's getting kind of difficult. Google tends to have little information about foreign companies, and other search engines are not much help either. Any ideas on where to find more info?--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you.--AAAAA 00:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not "spam". I got interested in the labor oriented initiatives of this company, and that prompted me to write the article.--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe that you didn't intend to spam Wikipedia, but the article really looks more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia entry. If kept, it should undergo a serious cleanup. - Mike Rosoft 13:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Changing my vote to keep following a rewrite. Thanks, Walden. - Mike Rosoft 20:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• For all the people that complained about the logo, I just changed it to a smaller size and on the left.--AAAAA 13:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The content of section 1 is not encyclopedia worthy and way too long. It should be rewritten into a _few_ lines in a proper history section (and with less bias). I think AAAAA has the right intentions with this article. Walden 13:28, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Any help you (or anybody) re-writing the article will be appreciated. I don't seem to be too good editing. I tend to compile info about the article I am working on, but I have seen other wikipedians with much more skills editing.--AAAAA 01:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried to do a quick rewrite. You or someone else can do the rest. regards, Walden 15:28, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Looks fine to me.--AAAAA 00:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• As of today, 5 KEEPs and 4 deletes. Thanks to whoever voted KEEP.--AAAAA 04:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not the place to try to promote ATM card manufacturers.
  • The company is an importer/distributor, not a manufacturer.--AAAAA 11:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but will need condensing and whatnot. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you won me over. Fishal 22:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you Fishal.--AAAAA 11:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• AAAAA, I see you re-inserted the "Labor oriented initiatives" section. I have to say that I don't like the tone nor the (relative) space you give to this section. I think you should browse some of the other company articles to get a sense of what is appropriate to include (eg. Ford Motor Company, Philips), and what is considered Dilbert inspired marketing. Walden 17:43, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
  • I already reverted the addition. (Sorry, but with this section expanded, the article looks too much like an advertisement.) - Mike Rosoft 20:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion