User talk:Worldchem
|
US Petrochemical
[edit]Sir:
I think that the problem with the notability of http://www.uspetrochemical.com/ is demonstrated by its website. It could easily be a small-time operation of a few experts and specialists in the field. With an American address like "Suite 675", it is clear that the main HQ does not even occupy a full floor of an American office building. The remaining half-dozen international "offices" have the hallmarks of involving a single full-time effort (FTE) or less, some even using post office box numbers. In other words, despite the seemingly obvious fact that there are some poeple involved with some level of expertise (possibly degrees in Chemical Engineering?), U.S. Petrochemical could be a small group of full-time employees and consultants. Until you assert, say, the number of full-time employees, past significant contracts and work and overall revenue stream (as say, a publicly traded company would be required to disclose and which small firms are loathe to provide because its betrays their smallness), you have little chance of demonstrating why such a firm is "notable". I could provide you with hundreds of web sites for businesses and firms that attempt to make themselves indistinguishable from large corporations but are, in fact, one or two-person organizations with claimed "partnerships" with other organizations. Heck, if your company appears in your local Yellow Pages in some section, how many other firms are also listed along with you?
Take a look at this incubator web site: http://www.tensv.org/ . Almost all of those companies have less than five employees. Many have had no significant revenue streams in many years. Almost none of them are NOT notable even though the one or two people involved are credentialed, talented and hard-working. EBay started at that incubator 10 years ago. It seems clear to me that US Petrochemical is not as notable as EBay. If you attempt to write another page for U.S. Petrochemical, you should strive to present objective facts that demonstrate notability. Also, the teenaged-minded people who run this web site despise commercial enterprises that promote themselves in their article language. Your web sit can say that your are a useful, reputable organization but your Wikipedia article should avoid making any such judgment calls. You really need to stick to "just the facts" and attempt to be merely a data sheet about your company. I have occasionally helped non-notable articles to survive AfD's. Here is one: Peanut Butter & Co.. He obviously has invested his creative energies in marketing his food product/service. This organization becomes notable it the eyes of the Wikipedia users because it has got some web coverage from third parties (which I researched and added). These teenaged-mined users and admins want to be entertained by celebrity and glamor, which the Engineering profession generally shuns. Another helpful view: go and examine Category:Engineering companies. It is not densely populated. If your company was involved in providing services to NASA or something glamorous like that, and you include such facts in your article, then your article might survive. But I suspect that your firm provides engineering services for "medium-tech" petrochemical products, rather than, say, very special rocket fuel or some dramatic, life-saving medical application.
In my expectation and opinion, they are just going to delete it again because,I hate to say it, but... they do not want knowledge the way you and I as trained engineers think of knowledge; they want to be entertained and flattered about their own self-importance. It is an unfair and youth-oriented environment, but what do expect for free? You might think of your time and effort as "not free", but the management of this web site does not value such because they did not have to pay for your volunteered time and effort. They discard the results of your work quite easily and without any adverse results to their conscience.
Even from the point of view of the top-level management: if your article is not going to generate additional significant traffic to the web site, it will not be valued. At the end of the day, their goal is to get the Alexa Internet traffic rating to be even higher than it is. It is currently ranked at #9 in the world.
Also, these teenaged-minded people are always in search of evil in a cartoon sense where they are cartoon super heroes. Petrochemical corporations, in their minds, primarily pollute our environment. I often compare them to the teen-aged sleuths on Scooby-Doo who trespass, assault and sometimes kidnap middle-aged people which is justified in that fantasy cartoon world by the evil the detect in the middle-aged targets of their investigations. They would, of course, vigorously object to the comparison, but I have yet to find a better analogy.
The most mature speaker I have listen to about Wikipedia is their former in-house counsel, Brad Patrick. He understands the organization and speaks freely and maturely about its values. See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/03/09/berkman-luncheon-series-brad-patrick-on-wikipedia/ I recall this to be a one-hour presentation but the current download is only 30 minutes long, but I think that they cut out the Q&A session. Brad resigned from the Foundation in February 2007 after being there about a year.--Mightyms 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)