Talk:Alter Eco
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
- Copied from User talk:Michael Bednarek#Alter Eco:
I don't think the image adds anything to the article. The article is a stub of low quality, with no reliable sources. Adding an image of the founder does nothing but take up space in an article where we're talking about the company and not the owner. I will again remove it but hope that you will respond here or on the talk page. Thanks Jenova20 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your reversal undid two unrelated improvements I made:
- I made the caption of the logo visible;
- I rationalised the wikilinking for
[[Fair Trade]] [[Fair Trade Movement|Movement]]("Fair Trade Movement" – two terms which link to the same article) to[[Fair Trade Movement]]("Fair Trade Movement").
- The image adds to this particular article just as much as Rupert Murdoch's image adds to the article on News Corporation. I can't see how the article's length and its lack of sources can be used as an argument against an image, which adds at least a verified facet.
- I think your characterisation of Time as an unreliable source is not widely shared.
- I intend to restore my edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I actually meant 1 reliable source, not none so i'm unsure why i said that at the time.
- my argument against the image stands though. Why include it? The article is small and it's about a Fairtrade company, the owner has no place in it.
- News Corp could be argued differently as Murdoch is a well known person heavily involved in the company. In this case it's a stub article with hardly any content and 1 reference and so the likelyhood of people looking up the owner or even caring who he is seem so small it's not worth bothering with and appears slightly towards a determination to promote him on a WP:Coatrack. That's my reasoning, Thanks Jenova20 10:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've corrected the wikilink you bought up and wikilinked Tristan Lecomte since he may have a chance at his own article. If not then fair enough, include the image. What do you say to that compromise? Rupert Murdoch has his own article after all. Thanks Jenova20 10:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- No chance at article for Tristan Lecomte. If he is notable, which may or may not be true, it is solely for his role in Alter Eco and possibly Pure Project See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, for single role. --Bejnar (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've corrected the wikilink you bought up and wikilinked Tristan Lecomte since he may have a chance at his own article. If not then fair enough, include the image. What do you say to that compromise? Rupert Murdoch has his own article after all. Thanks Jenova20 10:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Notability
[edit]This article is based upon a brief article in Time. There is no indication in that article or in other reliable sources that Alter Eco is a leader or innovator in the fair trade movement. See the history section there. The FTM was well organized prior to Alter Eco. Alter Eco does not appear to be a notable company. --Bejnar (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well to be fair they don't need to be an innovator or leader for notability.
- The same could be argued of a lot of companies. Thanks for weighing into the Lecomte discussion Jenova20 08:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually according to the guideline a company must have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:ORG It goes on to say: When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So yes, a lot of companies don't meet the notability guidelines. WP:ORGSIG --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I meant a lot of companies that are already on WP. Of course people will always want to be here for the advertising but the wording of this article suggests it's either padded with crap from the Alter Eco PR Dept. or important. Thanks Jenova20 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- One puff piece in Time, a couple of later mentions (such as on Bloomberg) that grab text from Alter Eco news releases, that's it. No significance, no other coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nominate for delete or leave as is? Thanks Jenova20 21:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- One puff piece in Time, a couple of later mentions (such as on Bloomberg) that grab text from Alter Eco news releases, that's it. No significance, no other coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I meant a lot of companies that are already on WP. Of course people will always want to be here for the advertising but the wording of this article suggests it's either padded with crap from the Alter Eco PR Dept. or important. Thanks Jenova20 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually according to the guideline a company must have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:ORG It goes on to say: When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So yes, a lot of companies don't meet the notability guidelines. WP:ORGSIG --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)