User talk:HighKing/Archives/2023/August

BigFace
Was just typing when you withdrew. Sorry to be slow in typing. Happy to discuss if you'd still like. No worries if resolved. Have a great day! Star  Mississippi  18:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think my weighing of the !votes (and the admissions of not meeting NCORP) and arguments about sourcing is probably different than yours?  HighKing++ 13:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * More or less, and I think your valid points were countered by others also within policy - caveat, I can't see the WSJ piece. You disagreed on whether the Sun Suntinel and SBJ were sufficient. You both made your cases. I happened to agree with you on the interview issue rendering SI not at all independent.
 * This is as far as I'd gotten . The independence of the sources are in question, which is what makes them harder to assess in terms of meeting Corp depth
 * ''First off I'll add that speaking as an editor - I agree, it's a ridiculously promotional article that drastically needs cutting, but not to the point where TNT/deletion was needed. If I were editing this outside of the AfD I might have proposed a gut and merger to Butler because the coverage is all in context of him. It's not too dissimilar to a conversation you and I had... somewhere about a company and its products. I know a long discussing landing in N/C is challenging even not for the nom, but with as many relists as had already happened, I didn't see another one providing any clear input. I'd be happy to relist it though if you'd prefer.
 * Where I landed on the input is as follows, roughly chronologically:
 * You and Oaktree offset one another on the sourcing. I am unable to access the WSJ piece ''
 * Let me know if that's helpful. And I'm willing to relist, I just don't see it helping attain a consensus. Star   Mississippi  02:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, for me when Oaktree b says Not sure it meets NCORP, its at GNG though, that's enough, its an admission that the sourcing mentioned isn't good enough. You say points raised were countered (within policy/guidelines) - I say the subsequent discussion at the NCORP Talk page overturned Oblivy's arguments entirely. SportingFlyer also admits the sourcing fails NCORP (but bizarrely meets "clearly passes GNG"). Which as we both know isn't possible. There are a number of editors at NCORP AfD who believe they can ignore NCORP and simply rely on GNG and AfD decisions like this one feeds into that narrative and position. You will note that nowhere has any Keep !voters pointed to any paragraphs that meet NCORP criteria in any of the sources, despite being asked several times. Instead the argument diverts off into "reliable sources" and "trust the journalist" and IAR. The WSJ article can be seen here on archive, it is an interview with Butler. I agree a redirect to Butler would probably be a good alternative to deletion. As to relisting ... I'm learning to just let these things go, you admin peeps have enough to do as it is and it certainly won't be the first promotional article to slip through the net.  HighKing++ 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! So While you weren't asking, I do think I might have assessed this incorrectly so I reopened. I look forward to seeing how it closes. Unrelated, "Clearly passes X guideline" is my least favorite argument because it's almost never backed up with "via sources X, Y and Z" which are necessary to clearly pass... It's why I so burned out on sports discussions, because they're a fight not a source assessment. Always a pleasure to discuss.  Star   Mississippi  02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

How NCORP applies
Hi, I think it might be best to start with an example rather than picking holes at particular sources. I'll put some example text below and we can edit it as we go as we progress.

NCORP
For me, the first step with a lot of "coverage" articles that report on "news" is to quickly scan to see if in reality, the content relies almost entirely on information provided by the company. I then mentally discard that content - it cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability. So for the above text, here's the first pass

first pass - discard content which is not "Independent Content"
First, identify text which relied entirely on information provided by the company, whether paraphrased or not.

That leaves us with

second pass - identify significant in-depth information *about the company*
As you can see, what we're left with meets ORGIND. Now look for content *about the company*, of any sort really at this point.

This is the content we now look to see if it meets CORPDEPTH. The paragraph in the middle is not about the company, it is generic background information about the market. This arguably provides important context for the article but it doesn't meet the requirement for deep/significant coverage - i.e. content that that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It doesn't place this particular company into the context of the market information - had it done so it would be easier to include.

The content that remains fails CORPDEPTH.

Result
Fails GNG/NCORP.

Summary
This is a start. It feels tutorial-ish but I didn't intend it to be, just trying to explain, step-by-step, what is happening.  HighKing++ 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
This is the same step used in the other articles. Feel free to comment.  HighKing++ 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it, and I appreciate your time. Mooonswimmer 17:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Over to you.  HighKing++ 17:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, just pinging you in case you've forgotten about this. If you're interested that is, no probs if you've decided otherwise.  HighKing++ 16:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It hasn't slipped my mind! Mooonswimmer 21:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in, hope you do not mind. But why is: "Its customer numbers double every second week and its revenues are expected to follow shortly." ... "ThisCompany has also recently hired 20 new staff for its new 20,000 sq ft warehouse which I am sure must have cost well over a million although the ThisCompany declined to provide an exact figure." considered to be primary or 'not "independent content"' as you wrote?
 * In this hypothetical scenario, all of those factoids could have another source beyond the subject, e.g. the customers, independent business analysts, professional contacts of employees (such as competing businesses and candidates, external recruiters, or even government tax collectors), and 3rd party real estate consultants who are uninvolved. What you have outlined is not enough to assume lack of independence for inclusion. Besides, WP:PRIMARY material can still be used for encyclopedic coverage for noncontroversial uses, especially when provided by a reliable secondary party. Simply covering facts is noncontroversial.
 * As others such as Sdkb wrote in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lititz_Watch_Technicum and WhatamIdoing wrote at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Question_about_application_of_WP:NCORP, pure independence of a source is not required and is really more of a spectrum of degrees; it might be more of a theoretical ideal rather than practical reality. Looking through discussions such as those examples, there is no actual consensus in my opinion about using full "independence" to exclude material for example based on quoted material, it really is very subjective and up to interested editors to decide. - Indefensible (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple answer - I agree it *could* possible have come from another source but very unlikely, especially because good journalists always provide the sources for their information. In this case, the only identified source is the founder. Also ORGIND requires that the content is *clearly* *attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Another point, don't confuse this process with somehow disallowing the use of sources (like this source) with the ability to include facts (found within even if from a PRIMARY source) from use within the WP article. As you said above, PRIMARY material can of course be used for the content of a WP article - it just can't be used for establishing notability (even when used by a secondary source). We're not examining the content for factual accuracy, we're looking for sources that may be used to establish notability.  HighKing++ 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like an assumption though, and not proven fact to disqualify the material. And this is also just your mock example, but in my opinion we should just accept that material covering stated facts especially if provided by a reliable source. Even discounting the direct quotes, we should be able to use the other material which is secondary for both encyclopedic coverage and to support notability, which are not the same but are directly correlated one might say. In any case, I do not want to get too drawn into your discussion but even the simple inclusion or disqualification of material within a reference is not black and white. Kudos for hashing things out. - Indefensible (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for stating your opinion and I think you realise that your opinion is not in line with long-standing consensus which resulted in the establishment of NCORP guidelines. Nor are the guidelines fixed in stone - the correct thing to do is to discuss your opinion and the NCORP Talk page and see if there is support for changing the guidelines in some way. Voicing opinions which go against consensus can also (over time) be seen as disruptive at AfD to !vote according to your opinion - the purpose of AfD is to use our guidelines to establish whether a topic is notable, not to use it as a platform to protest.
 * A "reliable source" is not the same as a source that checks every fact provided and it is a fallacy to make that assumption. You can be absolutely sure that the journalist can be relied upon to accurately report/summarise what was said, but no journalist is going to stand over what was said as being true - which lies at the heart of your assumption. In the example above, you can be very sure that the founder said "Yes, my neighbour was a fundamental building block and support" and the journalist accurately and faithfully reported it. Similarly, you can be very sure that the hypothetical journalist was provided information that the customer numbers double every second week and its revenues are expected to follow shortly - but there's no indication that the journalist independently acquired this information from another source - or even independently verified the information as true. Actually for these types of articles, neither expected nor part of their job.
 * If the journalist had said something like "the rate at which the company is acquiring new warehouse space strongly indicates a situation whereby customer numbers double every second week" this is more easily attributed to some calculation or opinion or investigation of the journalist themselves and would not therefore be easily discounted (and I wouldn't). You can't ignore ORGIND requiring content that is *clearly* *attributable* to a *source* *unaffiliated* to the subject.  HighKing++ 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)