Talk:BigID

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Closing as unsuccessful; article has shrunk further, to 598 prose characters, issues were not dealt with in the ensuing eight days, and the problem tags remain.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the American-Israeli company BigID became a unicorn just four years after it was founded? [1]
  • ALT1:... that the American-Israeli company BigID attained an evaluation of $1 billion just four years after it was founded?

• Comment: My first DYK. No QPQ requirement.

Created by הסיסמא123 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

My Review:

• New Y Yes – indeed was published on May 16
• Long enough Y Yes – far more than the minimum of 1,500 characters
• Within policy N No There are concerns here. The table under "Products" does not include inline citations for all entries. Also, some very close paraphrasing picked-up by Earwig here These need to be remedied before I can approve this nomination.
• Format – Not sure whether it is a problem that most people might not be familiar as to what the term "unicorn" means, as it relates to finance. Might limit the only proposed hook's interest to a "broad audience".
• QPQ – Irrelevant, as this indeed is verifiably the editor's first nomination for DYK

Conclusion: I cannot approve it at this time. There are aforementioned issues with the article that must first be remedied. I'd also suggest, perhaps, that a better hook be proposed.

SecretName101 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@הסיסמא123: review conducted. Article has issues that need to be addressed. SecretName101 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @SecretName101:. I edited the article further in order to avoid close paraphrasing and added some of the text in the table with inline citations to the "Products" section. I think that being unfamiliar with the term unicorn in that context makes the hook more interesting to a "broad audience". That said, I added an alternative. הסיסמא123 (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@הסיסמא123: Still appear to be instances of close paraphrasing (erwig) SecretName101 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: what is the threshold that is acceptable in your eyes? הסיסמא123 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing that verges on copyright infringement/plagiarism should not be present. 03:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I have made further changes and I do not think that there are any close paraphrasing that verges on copyright infringement/plagiarism. Can you please check again? הסיסמא123 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been asked to review the paraphrasing in this article. I do see portions that are too closely paraphrased from the original sources. Compare for example "The company's product combines cataloging, correlation, cluster analysis, and machine learning-based classification that assist companies to understand, detect, protect, and infer value out of their data" with "combining machine learning-based classification, cataloging, correlation, and cluster analysis to help companies better understand, protect, and derive value from their data". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Nikkimaria. Given that erwig isn't currently indicating that there are any close paraphrasing in the article, and that the difference between close paraphrasing and paraphrasing is subjective, can you please list all of the close paraphrasing that exist today in your opinion? That would be helpful. As for the example above, do you think that "BigID's data intelligence platform includes such features as cataloging, correlation, cluster analysis, and classification, that assist their customers to protect, make sense of, and infer value out of the data stored in their systems" still constitutes close paraphrasing? If so, can you please suggest another paraphrasing? Thanks again. הסיסמא123 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Earwig doesn't check for close paraphrasing; it can only assess whether there has been word-for-word copying. Close paraphrasing is assessed by direct comparison. If paraphrasing is not possible, you can always use a direct quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Article has tags indicating significant problems, and so much material has been deleted as problematic that only 1007 prose characters remain, far short of the 1500 minimum required. Under the circumstances, unless the issues are resolved in the next seven days and an expansion made within policy (neutral and free of close paraphrasing and similar issues), the nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The nominator also hasn't edited since the middle of June so if this nomination is to be saved, it needs a new editor to adopt this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because according to "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion": "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion". This subject is notable, and I do think that it is written from a neutral point of view. CSD G11 is irrelevant here. The article is well sourced. This article is in the process of DYK nomination, it was reviewed and no basis for deletion was found. הסיסמא123 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Before speedy deleting this article, can the person that put this tag or an admin explain what parts of it are promotional, and why substantial encyclopedic content wouldn't remain after removing the promotional material? הסיסמא123 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hello הסיסמא123, I would be happy to provide further explanation on why the article for this company has been nominated for speedy deletion according to criterion G11. The DYK nomination (which is currently unsuccessful) is completely separate process operates according to different criteria. I believe that this article would "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic" due to the WP:PUFFERY, WP:NAMEDROP-ing and/or unsourced claims throughout the article, such as "offers data intelligence and protection to enterprises for data governance", "in order to assist companies better understand, detect, protect, and infer value out of their data", achieved unicorn status in 2020", "a data intelligence company directed towards helping companies explore their most sensitive data" and "BigID established itself as a leader in data-driven privacy automation".

  It seems that all of your edits since 2011 relate to this company, do you now have any connection to the company that should be disclosed? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • MrsSnoozyTurtle, all of the examples you provided are sourced. I do not think describing what the products of a company are, or its evaluation is irreverent for an article about a company. I hope we can work together in order to improve the article instead of deleting it, as I think we can both agree that the company is notable. I suggest you assume good faith. As you may see, I have contributed much to the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I do most of my edits. הסיסמא123 (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)