This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
The Erik Siemers article referenced is being slightly misinterpreted - after the economic hardship of 2008 OCFP had large layoffs, eventually dipping down to approximately 100 employees, however that was the low point. The 2008 revenue figures were achieved with the larger staff size of approximately 150. Since the company is privately held, these numbers will be difficult cite, however some basic logic dictates a 20% decrease in revenue would lead to some lay offs ;)
Correct figures would be:
mid 2008 - 150
low point (~Oct 2009) - 100
current - 105 in Oregon
current including second facility (Industrial Pine Products, can see they use a shared website) - 150
And you have been mostly reverted. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I would have loved to have used the later annual revenue number in the article, but that was a projection. Anyway, the cited source says what it says. The bigger issue you have is demonstrating this company is notable, and so far it does not appear to be. The PBJ is the main place one would look for sources for this Portland area article, and there are not really any other than this one, and it is a very brief mention of this company at that. You need a lot more reliable, third party sources (think mainstream media), otherwise the article will end up being deleted. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information - I had read the tenants of Wikipedia a few weeks ago but am not used to them yet and you are correct regarding verifiability. I also agree with the rewording of the cited source - my only objection was implying the staff size was up to 100 in 2008 when really that was the low number - it matters when then correlating current staff size etc. I'm curious though, is "pick up the phone and call them" not "verifiable" because that's what I did to get the stats above. Their number is on their site and I found the CFOs name in their directory. I don't want to argue this point, I'm just genuinely curious where that line is.
As for notability, I just re-read the entire notable article and believe this article has met the threshold already. Specifically, all sources I believe place well based on the standards of Depth of Coverage and Independence. Take for contrast Shari's Restaurants with (excluding self referencing articles) the same number of references and exclusively references that cannot be verified via hyperlink. I appreciate your efforts on this, at the same time I'm also getting a sense of contention from you, and I hope that's not the case; tone is often nearly impossible via written word. Regardless, I will continue to add references as I find them, and thank you again for your consideration. Soundspawn (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't compare articles, as nobody said Shari's article is up to snuff. It's another newbie type argument that makes experienced editors roll their eyes. Sort of like when you told your mom everyone else was doing blank, and you likely know how that sentence ends. Nothing personal, we just hear that a lot and grow tired of repeating ourselves.
The only issue I have had with the editing so far was the removal of the notability tag. Not that it is reserved for the person who placed it, but usually it is best to let experienced editors remove any tags such as that, as they are the ones with the experience to judge. Take it from someone who has written dozens of articles on companies and been in involved in many deletion discussions. If we were judging this company based purely on what is in the article, it would get deleted. The only substantial article there now that I can access (Miller Wood) is a great start, but most editors discussing notability would want more, as that is a niche publication. Basically, the more readers of a publication the better, which is why the minimum are regional publications (PBJ qualifies as such, as would The Oregonian newspaper). In other words, if the Miller Wood article was instead from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, it would be more definitive. If you happen to have a Mult. Co library card, use the online databases to check The Oregonian's archives (check both the pre-1987 and the 1987 on ones) to see if you locate more.
Thanks again for the information, and sorry if I overstepped in removing the tag; it made sense when there were no articles, but once I had four solid references I removed it (while keeping the stub flag) as sort of a mental "checking off the list". I do still contend notability has been met by the documented standards, and recently two additional references have been located (of course I will continue to reference what I find). As to the "Don't compare articles" note, I see your point and would generally agree, but the link actually explains that often such an argument is valid and actually useful - I feel this is one of those times. Mainly because I see you have worked on the Shari's article in the past and apparently had no issue with its notability. I apologize if I have offended, just thought it was an appropriate apples to apples comparison (and still do). Good call on the Oregonian archives, I know there will be stuff in there. Soundspawn (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OTHERSTUFF argument goes both ways. As to Shari's specifically, the article is not great, but we judge notability on the topic itself, and not the article. I don't know about you, but I've known about Sharis for about 25 years, they have adds on TV (or did), and you see them all over the NW. This company, it's possible I've heard of them before, and maybe I've driven by their offices, but its just not at the same recognition level. In other words, I know Shari's as a topic is notable (and I worked on the article to help demonstrate that), but for this company, I don't know. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I sense we could continue debating this, but I don't think that would be helpful at this time. Thank you for your input, Wikipedia clearly has a steep learning curve but you are helping me get through it Soundspawn (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
