Talk:Poly Inc.

"With its market-driving technologies, best-in-class products, alliance partnerships, and world-class service, Polycom is the smart choice for organizations seeking proven solutions and a competitive advantage from on-demand communications and collaboration."

Is this an article or an ad? --194.77.253.2 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up a bit but the whole article needs to be rewritten. BJ Talk 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not the original creator of this page but I did add newer products to the page as well as the requested references and 2008 revenue updates. Does this help bring this page to Wikipedia standards? - Chasingriley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasingriley (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Polycomlogo.jpg
Image:Polycomlogo.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an advert
This article needs help to make it sound less like an advert. More external links needed to help substantiate the claims made in this article. Please help. Jez t e C 08:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to rewrite the content...since the History content is what got flagged....that should be modified or deleted. I will work on it...chasingriley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasingriley (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Content has been tweaked and I'm adding additional external links for Polycom....hopefully this will help...chasingriley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasingriley (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All product content has been removed and what remains is historical info on the company...chasingriley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasingriley (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the more marketing-like unverified claims - I think this is a better approach than simply marking the page for deletion. After all, the 'No references' tag states that unverified claims may be removed... Timaru (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

All references lead to the company itself or to sources where they possibly advertised... 80.143.18.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding tags to the article without explanation. References to sources "where they possibly advertise" is not any kind of rational for claiming the article itself is written like an advert, or that they are "affiliated".  Nor have you identified where the editing from a major contributor who has a connection to Polycon has occurred.  Please do not re-add these tags until you can demonstrate that they are valid, rather than being based on your opinions and suspicions. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You was right. It ain't no good being suspicious if one don't have prove. Da feller cannot throw tags around alright. Sure that was a mad gal. They can be waaay bad when they get da bloodlust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.7.60 (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion?
79.235.5.9 (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How does the Wikipedia know when it came to mind "Hey, let's have our own company"?
 * How comes the history section sounds like a "festschrift" (an hommage printed by a company on its own)?
 * How comes the German article is tagged like forever?
 * How comes all langugae versions but the English are bluntly pathetic although this is supposed to be an international player?
 * How come all references are ruminated press releases?
 * How comes they seem to be so "Oh Lord" mighty although they are no market leader or a leader in technology?
 * They gotta have aa lot of money to swallow all these companies and their patents.
 * Yeah, it all boils down to money.
 * Can't buy me love.
 * Of course, everone is here on herself...
 * I say: Let's get rid of it.
 * What say you?
 * I know only one answer: DELETION


 * Either this person is just dead right or or he or she has unfinsihed business with this company. However, no matter what stinks, it happened outside the WIkipedia and the Wikipedia shouldn't make itself collateral damage. We don't need this odeur. If somebody wants to apply for a job in this company they can still go to XING or LinkedIn or whatever to seek someone they can address directly.

Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.187.11 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lads, I cannae undertsand what the fuss is about. Press releases is something every ambitious company does. So, this is just another one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.82.189 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Polycom is a notable company. There are plenty of reputable sources to reference. Search for Polycom CEO interview for example. 141.123.143.100 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles on Polycom and Plantronics are a mess
This article should be rephrased to describe Polycom entirely in past tense and then the article on Plantronics should be renamed to Poly (company) and it should be made clear in that article that the surviving legal entity is Plantronics, Inc., doing business as Poly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm starting to work on the Polycom, Plantronics and Poly pages and will incorporate this comment. In the real world I'm Jeff Rodman, Polycom co-founder as well as Wikipedia donor, and have a stake in seeing that this contains accurate and Wikipedia-conforming content. I am glad the earlier marketing-heavy text has already been removed, that did not belong here. Please note I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing and still well back in the learning curve, so any awkwardness in my writing or communications is the result of that rather than any intent to be bad. Walkranrunning (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)walkranrunning