User talk:HighKing/Archives/2021/August

Request on 01:25:10, 31 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by YCC Lisa

• YCC Lisa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RTCCD (Organisation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What if I couldn't find any other resources that talk about the organization, since it is a organization in Vietnam.

YCC Lisa (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• YCC Lisa, if there's no references it isn't notable. You can also provide references in any language, doesn't matter. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Checking up on you

Hello it’s been a while, you haven’t been as active as you once were, I want to believe this is due to real life work and nothing too serious I hope all is well and you are in perfect health. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking in, all good here, I got stuck into the AfC backlog last month but I should be back AfDs from now. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just knowing you are okay and in good health is all I’m grateful to God for 😊 Celestina007 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why was my Ben Duracell Jones page declined?

Hello HighKing,

Thank you for reviewing my work! Unfortunately you declined it :( Is there ant tips or help you can give me on getting this accepted please! LaylaDakota (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

LaylaDakota, sure - there are comments on the Draft. There are a number of issues highlighted there so it is a good idea to try to address the issues raised there. As more detailed feedback the structure is unusual - take a look at other articles on boxers to see how things are structured and the tone and language used. Also, it is not a good idea to use Wikipedia itself as a reference (circular referencing is not a good idea). The important thing to keep in mind is to ensure that this person is notable mainly for one single reason - winning boxing titles. So that should be front and centre in the lede and in my opinion the article should really be structured around these feats. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

BFL Draft Question

Hi HighKing. Could you please help me by reviewing the below links and explaining to me so that I understand why they do not qualify based on the descriptions that you mentioned? I believe that this is independent coverage not introduced by the company and these are not passing references. If you believe that the coverage is not independent, I would like to understand the criteria for which this assessment is made on Wikipedia so that I can find the right links. I am a bit confused generally, because the previous editor made the comment that the topic does not have significant coverage, but the editor before said that stated that it does and the page was ready for publication. The comment regarding the "organization" versus the "founder and management" -- it seems that the majority of the reporting journalists always write about the founder extensively as part of their coverage of the company and its products, because they believe that she has an intriguing background. But I don't believe that this negates the coverage itself. And this seems to be an issue of debate between the editors. I introduced some of the additional links to give the editors an understanding of the company's scale. The Government of Moscow is stating on its own website that this is the largest company in Russia in the sector, while the Russian Government's official export center is stating that it is one of Russia's flagship exporters. I just thought this was important for the reviewing editors to see, so that they understand that this is a very significant and not a fly-by-night company. I really do not agree that all the references "rely on announcements or interviews or information provided by the company." Before The Moscow Times or CNN or Intellinews or Kommersant (Russia's WSJ) covers a story, they seriously vet it. Any legitimate source does. For instance, CNN maybe covered on average per year as part of the below-linked program (this is a guesstimate) 25 or 30 companies maximum. And the companies that are covered are all notable, or else they wouldn't be featured. So the fact that a story includes quotes or an interview from a subject doesn't mean anything, if we are talking about reputable media. I say this as someone who has worked and continues to work as a business/finance editor for news publications for the past 20 years. For example, it would be an error in my opinion to assume that this article (https://www.intellinews.com/former-model-s-biofood-bars-are-the-new-face-of-russia-s-health-food-industry-126803) is based on information the company provided. How do you know the information does not come from research by the journalists and editors? I think this would be a wrongful assumption. One has to make the assumption based on the quality and legitimacy of a publication, because there is no way ever to really know. And this publication is owned by a former bureau chief of the Daily Telegraph, an economics correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph and a foreign correspondent for publications in London, Tokyo and Paris, who have also worked in providing in-depth industry financial information and research in the private-sector (investment funds, etc.). (I am taking this directly from their website.) And it is also a "journalists' journalism" site, i.e. a site where from a lot of foreign correspondents in Central and Eastern Europe pull information and story ideas. (I know because I worked in media in the region for a long time.) I have no skin in this game but coming on my hundredth edit for this story, I am just kind of confused, because this company is in fact very notable and much more notable than many other companies on this website, and I thought I had gotten it to the point of publication, but then another and now a second editor are saying it is still not ready.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/11/12/russian-health-food-startup-soars-during-pandemic-a72008

https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2017/12/12/744920-evraz-batonchikov-bite

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2491212

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10155128115313067 (CNN)

JohannesburgBlues (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

JohannesburgBlues - you say "independent content not produced by the company". It is a company and therefore WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline. Take a look especially at the definition of "Independent Content" at WP:ORGIND which says a reference must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Most of your pushback appears to based around the assumption articulated in your statement above "it would be an error in my opinion to assume that this article "intellinews" is based on information the company provided". The guidelines say that if there is no opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc clearly attributable to the journalist ... and there isn't ... then it cannot be used to establish notability. So when articles feature a "company" but spend most of the article talking about the founder, the founder's inspiration, the big break, the funding, happy smiley pictures, etc ... and using information provided by the founder or the company (because, say, the journalist only attributes one source in the story and doesn't ever indicate they've done some extra homework to unearth something else) then if fails ORGIND. We don't care who owns the newspapers, we simply apply the guidelines to references. Doesn't matter if it is the NYT or the local city gazette, same guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I understand what you are saying now. I will see what other materials are out there. It seems to me based on your explanation that The Moscow Times story would qualify -- it contains opinion and analysis from the journalist (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/11/12/russian-health-food-startup-soars-during-pandemic-a72008). The Vedomosti link also has company analysis and analysis of the market relevant to it, but not opinion, so I assume it does not quality for that reason? (https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2017/12/12/744920-evraz-batonchikov-bite) Could you let me know? Thanks, and best wishes.

JohannesburgBlues (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

Hi JohannesburgBlues lets try to find out why we're looking at the same article and still have different ideas. In your opinion, which parts of The Moscow Times reference meets ORGIND? I would say there's nothing in that article which indicates that the journalist did any independent investigation/analsys/etc, the entire article is littered with "Shifrina says" and the information she provided. And don't forget that the reference must contain in-depth information *and* "Independent Content". The vedomosti.ru reference is based entirely on an announcement of investment - I also cannot point to any "Independent Content" which could be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for this. I am getting a much better sense now of what you are looking for.

So in TMT story, what about these paragraphs? Do we assume things like this are not own-research, but instead provided by the company? I do see what you are saying about the many "says" throughout the story.

"BioFoodLab has moved on from just making healthy snack bars and now has 113 different products — named “stock keeping units (SKUs)” in the industry. That gives the company some real clout with the supermarket chains.

Some of the ingredients for these new products can be sourced in Russia, but much of it has to be imported from BioFoodLab’s partners in Spain and Germany. Russia has walnuts, but not almonds or coconuts for alternative milks, for instance. 

Health is also a factor. Russian men over the 45 have a 55% higher chance of falling prey to diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as they eat too much fat and sugar, says Shifrina. Another study found that 90% of Russian women are not getting enough protein and 85% take in less iron than they should. 

So BioFoodLab has added these elements to their products that are popular with women. Likewise, the company is producing a snack bar aimed at children that is gluten- and sugar-free. These have been a big hit with mothers in the Scandinavian countries, where there is no similar product on the market.

BioFoodLab has ticked a lot of boxes that match changing Russian eating habits and the new interest in living a healthy lifestyle that has already been emerging for many years.

And the success and fast growth of BioFoodLab has already piqued the interest of the multinational food producing giants." 

==In the Vedomosti story, it says the company refused to give the investment-deal price, but a journalist source said it was in the XX digits.

Another source close to the journalist says:

Invest AG will invest in Biofudlab as a financial investor, emphasizes a person close to one of the parties to the transaction. The segment of healthy food and snacks is one of the few fastest growing in the sector, growing by an average of 10–20% per year, he explains the fund's interest in the project.

And then the journalist presents anaylsis here (as well as in the side-bar, which I unfortunately cannot copy for some reason):

According to SPARK-Interfax, the revenue of the operating company of the project LLC Biofudlab in 2016 increased by 57% to 142 million rubles, net profit - by the same amount to 39 million rubles. Shifrina does not disclose the forecast of revenue and profit for this year. This year "Biofudlab" has already produced 800 tons of traditional Bite and children's Bitey bars (+ 110% yoy), besides Russia, they are sold in 14 other countries. According to Nielsen, Biofoodlab ranks third among fruit bar manufacturers in terms of volume and value sales; its main competitors are Prodinko (Fit & Fruit brand) and White Tree (Fruit Energy).

The category of non-chocolate bars in Russia is developing rapidly: their sales in retail chains over the past year have grown by 24.5% in physical terms, and fruit bars in particular - by almost a third, confirms the director of the customer service group at Nielsen Russia Vladislav Andreev ... According to him, this is a direct consequence of the increase in supply, as well as a reflection of the global trend towards a healthy lifestyle, which means avoiding sugar.

Consumption of healthy, natural food is growing, in particular among vegans, vegetarians and other supporters of a healthy lifestyle, the representative of the retailer X5 Retail Group notes. According to him, in the Perekrestok supermarkets, which are managed by the company, sales of various bars - fruit, cereal, protein - increased by 60% over the year. In the coming years, the trend will unfold even more extensively, which will entail the development of the corresponding "healthy" categories, Andreev concludes.

Thank you for your assistance here. It is much clearer to me now.

JohannesburgBlues (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

Hi JohannesburgBlues, for me, the TMT story relies entirely on information provided by the Founder or the company. The sentences in the article that are not directly attributable to the Founder (no quotation marks, no "Founder says" in front) are likely to be though, based on the context of the entire article since nearly everything else is. More importantly, those sentences are too few and far between and none give any indication that they are "Independent Content" (not *clearly attributable* to the journalist or another source). The Vedmosti story does have information that wasn't provided to the journalist by the Founder but we need to look at it closer. The SPARK-Interfax numbers are from the company public disclosures for the previous year and the rankings are also based on the company-produced figures. Still, it is analysis by a third party so it goes in the bank. The discussion about how non-choc bars market is growing is not directly about the company so not really relevant for this notability especially where the article/analyst/journalist didn't directly connect this to the company with their own "opinion/investigation/etc". So that article just didn't deliver. If you can, see if there are any "analyst reports" that discuss the company. Otherwise, in my opinion, it is WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article here. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Let me take a look this week. Just at first glance I saw the below after a half hour of research.

Forbes Russia presents external positive and negative expert analysis of the company, but it is written by а freelancer.

"Mikhail Elagin, executive creative director of the TWIGA communication group, believes that the company is doing the right thing by focusing on one segment of the audience, this does not allow the brand image to be blurred. But there are also disadvantages. A “hipster product” is a “stigma” and other segments of the audience will not want to associate with it. This bias will be difficult to shake off, ”he cautions.

“Guerrilla marketing is still enough, but as it develops, the company will inevitably face the need to provide direct advertising. This is the only way to find a way to a broad mass of consumers, especially in such a “loaded” category as snacks (snack products), ”says Alexei Goncharenko, director of the Russian representative office of the Minale Tattersfield branding agency.

How do you convince the consumer that they need a natural bar for a snack instead of cheap muesli? Mikhail Elagin believes that there is a serious barrier in the way of Bite - bars in the mind of a Russian are not associated with healthy eating. “Trendy infographics and interesting educational videos can help to convey the company's philosophy to the consumer,” he says. Mitrofanov considers it logical to further develop the company towards a nutritious healthy diet, and not just healthy snacks."

https://www.forbes.ru/svoi-biznes/startapy/239942-produkt-dlya-hipsterov-kak-zarabotat-na-perekuse

I also see this excerpt from a report by Euromonitor International, which mentions BioFoodLab as a market leader.

"Unlike the market of cereal bars, the leading positions in the market of fruit and nut bars are occupied by domestic companies. The largest players are Moscow's BioFoodLab LLC (Moscow, TM Bite) and Prodinko LLC (TM Fit & Fruit), as well as Beloe Derevo LLC (Novosibirsk Region, TM Frutilad), Dary Pamira Company (Moscow, TM “Shelkovitsa s Pamir”) and LLC “Klinskie sneki” (Vladimir region, TM Pikki). In addition, the products of the Czech company Usovsko Food AS (TM Fit) occupy a prominent place in the market."

https://foodmarket.spb.ru/archive.php?article=2418

In this analysis there is an entire section dedicated to the company in the chapter: "Description of the Largest Healthy Snack Bar Producers." But the entire report is not available at this link; only part of it: http://www.marketanalitika.ru/report/snacks2016.html

Here you have an analysis of plant-based and alternative milks in Russia, which talks about the leading producers in Russia, including Bite (BioFoodLab's flagship brand): https://www.agroxxi.ru/stati/rynok-rastitelnogo-moloka-v-rossii-ne-soja-no-oves.html

This is an analysis of the key market players from RBC in healthy snacks in Russia, with a section on BioFoodLab: https://www.rbc.ru/ins/own_business/29/06/2015/558be6f59a794740814e4ea4

This is another story about the plant-based milk market in Russia, analyzing the retail landscape: "Now the following brands can most often be found on store shelves: Alpro (Danone), NeMoloko (Sady Pridonya), BORGES, Green Milk and Zdorovye MENU (Soyuzpischeprom), Adez (Coca-Cola), Take a bite (BIOFUDLAB) and Valio." https://www.dp.ru/a/2021/03/31/Za_ZOZH_i_modu_alternati

This is a story about another company in Russia, which mentions BioFoodLab: "Also, other Russian and foreign manufacturers of herbal milk analogues are actively working with food service. For example, the Belgian company Alpro, the Russian company BioFoodLab (produces its herbal drinks under the Bite brand in Spain) and others." https://producttoday.ru/2020/10/21/nemoloko-vyvodit-na-rynok-linejku-dlja-biznesa/

There are many more stories/links. I need to comb through them all.

JohannesburgBlues (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

Hi JohannesburgBlues, just so long as you keep in mind that *each* reference must meet *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. So, for example, the Forbes Russia story. Most is taken up with history and strategy of the company. The Correas exec is a "connected" source as Correas are retail customers for Bite bats. So that leaves the Twiga exec who provides his opinion on the marketing of the product but when you isolate everything said, does it meet CORPDEPTH? I don't think it does.

The good news is that analyst reports are really good references and nearly always meets the criteria for establishing notability. So the report from Euromonitor International is good. If you can now find another analyst report from a different firm of analysts that profiled the company, the topic will have met the criteria for establishing notability. But having found one report I'm sure there are others. Also, the rbc.ru article which contains profiles of a number of companies in the health food market is an example of marketing masquerading as news (in my opinion) where a company provides all the information/photos/etc for the article and the tone/tense/language of the article is factual, albeit peppered with quotations from the founder. Crucially though there's nothing to indicate "Independent Content". There are photos/diagrams from Euromonitor research which the company will have licensed for their own use and marketing and for me, that is the dead giveaway that this article fails ORGIND. So .. keep looking for analyst research, that is be far the easiest route for a company that produces so much marketing. Or perhaps there a book or a case study? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Great, and understood. Many thanks for this. I will save the Euromonitor International link and look for other similar reports this week. JohannesburgBlues (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

I just did some more digging.

So here is another analytical report on the snack market in Russia. It identifies Bite (BioFoodLab) as the market creator and driver in Russia. https://t-laboratory.ru/2020/04/13/rynok-snekov-v-rossii/

“As in other growing markets, new players regularly appear on the snack market, who specialize both in specific snacks (specific market segments) and close a wide range. The older the market, the more top players with the highest sales and broad representation there are. In relatively new markets, as a rule, there are 2-3 top players or even one player who has become a market creator (not necessarily the first in terms of entering the market, but making every effort to develop the market by popularizing the product). So in the market of fruit and nut bars, this is the Bite brand. In one of the youngest snack markets - the market for fruit chips - the leaders are the brands Dolka, Fruitsy, Zelenika, Yablokov and Frutonika. In both of these markets, new players appear almost every month, however, the overwhelming majority of them do not move to the federal level - in order to gain leading positions, it is necessary to provide a wide coverage of distribution channels (first of all, networks) and marketing support. This means that the emergence of large players will be possible only if there are significant investments at the start (at the stage of entering the market) or with the diversification of existing food industry enterprises that already have contracts with chains (albeit in other product categories) and marketing budgets. If a company is already operating in the market, one must not forget that a growing market is always attractive to enter it, so if there are unique designs and recipes, newcomers can enter it and can negotiate with the chains. For example, the brand of fruit and nut bars Daze, the concept of which was developed by our company, aroused great interest in almost all federal chains, and negotiations are underway now. This bar has a unique emotional positioning that sets it apart from all other market players positioning on the same criteria.”

There is another except from a more recent 2020 Euromonitor International report that mentions the company’s Bite oat crackers among the most popular “traditional snacks with healthier positioning” in Russia. https://foodmarket.spb.ru/archive.php?article=2760

“In Russia, as well as at the regional level, healthy snacks occupy about 13% of the total snack market in monetary terms, while the volume-forming categories in healthy snacks are primarily snacks with a naturally healthy composition (dried fruits, nuts and seeds). At the moment in Russia, among traditional snacks with healthier positioning, the most popular are those with a reduced sugar content (for example, “Stole Sugar” low-sugar chocolate from the Krasny Oktyabr factory, Nilambari sugar-free chocolate, Bite oat crackers without sugar). Evaluating the next 5 years, we see that the greatest growth potential in healthy snacks will be in cereal, fruit-nut and functional bars. Another promising trend that has only recently appeared on store shelves is salty snacks with healthy positioning: vegetable chips, lightly fried and unsalted popcorn.”

It looks like someone wrote their dissertation (masters, bachelor’s, not sure) about the company at the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation’s Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution “STATE UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT”. They have some graphs there and say that the company at the point of writing had an eight-percent market share of the entire healthy snack market in Russia. https://sowa-ru.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/dubnikova-vkr-biofoodlab.docx

This is a small mention, but in this Nielsen report, “In Pursuit of Convenience: Russian Consumer Expectations: 2025,” it lists Bite snack bars in the table of products titled: “The Market Is Adapting. Products are appearing on the market that meet food functionality needs.” https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/nielsen-cmi-event.pdf

There is also a report here on Russian Exporters by Expert magazine, which mentions Bite. https://expert.ru/expert/2019/14/spisok-eksportera/ As part of the report, there is an interview with Kirill Ilichev, director of the Moscow Export Center, who says: “…I cannot say that the food industry has a large export volume, but it is represented by very active companies, and the leading among them are manufacturers of useful products - snacks, cereals, granolas. These are the Bite company, which exports to more than forty countries, and Bio-Nova, whose products are sold in all Russian networks and are now actively promoting for export.”

Would any of the above work as a second source? I have added now all three thinks to the various research to the draft -- the one link that we already discussed to the 2016 Euromonitor report, a second link mentioned above to the 2020 Euromonitor report, and a third link mentioned above to the Trend Laboratory research. Do you think it is good to go, or should I continue exploring for more research?

JohannesburgBlues (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

Hi there. Hope you are well. Just wanted to check in on the above. Best wishes! JohannesburgBlues (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

Hi JohannesburgBlues, in my opinion there are now sufficient references to establish notability. Good work. I've approved the draft but I hope you continue to add to the article. For example, a short section on the leading brand and also to ensure that the references from analysts above are incorporated into the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, excellent! Very cool. OK -- I will start working on that section this week. I will also make sure all the analytical links are incorporated, too. JohannesburgBlues (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)JohannesburgBlues

Openserve

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia editing, but been tasked with assisting in fleshing out the Openserve wiki page a bit, but noticed the potential deletion notification. I would like to know how I go about working with Wikipedia to ensure that I'm checking all the boxes. I see that your comments were only from the day before, and spoke about how there were no independent sources.

I think I have rectified some of the issues mentioned, but still learning the ropes and would really appreciate and advise!

Thanks so much, NicholasdebruyneFalcorp (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi NicholasdebruyneFalcorp, above you say that you've been "tasked" with "fleshing out the Openserve wiki page". If you are connected with the company or have been paid for this work, you must place a notice on your userpage. Please see WP:COI for more information.

A discussion to establish whether this article meets our requirements can be found at WP:Articles for deletion/Openserve. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on my submission's references (Draft:Echobox)

Hi HighKing, thanks for reviewing my submission and providing feedback.

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and trying to refine my knowledge. I thought there was a good opportunity to create this page as it already exists on French and German Wikipedia with references from reliable, independent publications that provide “significant” coverage of the company (not just passing mentions). After reviewing your feedback and reviewing each of these references again in detail, I do not understand why you say “none of the references in the article meet the criteria.” For example, the Bloomberg reference and both references from Business Insider (links here and here) were written by staff members (not third-party contributors) of these reputable publications, and they each provide significant coverage of the company. The references contain independent commentary and analysis from the authors alongside interview quotes from the company. Your feedback indicates that these references “rely on announcements or interviews or information provided by the company or related companies/people,” but isn’t this the case for most, if not all, articles published in quality publications where journalists do due diligence? Journalists will always seek commentary and information from the article’s subject and/or from people with knowledge of the topic. Could you please tell me why you have concluded that none of these references are both “in-depth” and “independent”, especially in the case of the Bloomberg and Business Insider references mentioned above?

Thanks in advance for any more light you can shed to help new contributors like myself to apply the guidelines. DGE2021 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)DGE2021

Hi DGE2021, welcome to Wikipedia! Yes it is a great idea to create articles and I know it can seem confusing when the various policies and guidelines appear to contradict each other. The first thing you should be aware of is that the guidelines for different language wikipedia projects are all different. There may well be an article on a French language wikipedia that meets the criteria for establishing notability on that project but fails the guidelines in another language. You should also be aware that articles on companies/organizations have their own guideline, WP:NCORP, and these guidelines are interpreted strictly especially for establishing notability. As I pointed out in my comment on your draft, NCORP requires (at least) two references that contain *both* in-depth information *about* the *organization* and "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.

In your post above, you put emphasis on "reliable, independent publications" that provide "significant coverage" of the company. This (very overused) sentence has been more fully qualified in NCORP so, for instance, what exactly is meant by "independent publications"? Other guidelines take this to simply mean that the publisher is a separate corporation with no corporate links to the topic company but ORGIND requires full independent - that is, both functional independence and "Independent Content". In other words, we require references that don't simply provide information within a topic company's echo chamber, repeating quotations or announcements, etc, without the article containing "Independent Content".

So lets return to the references you've selected.

• The Bloomberg reference (also available here) discusses a customer's experience (the CTO of Liberation, a French newspaper) with the company and relies entirely on information provided by that customer ("Liberation), another customer (Galileo) and by Echobox themselves. This Bloomberg article has no "Independent Content" and therefore fails ORGIND.
• The first Business Insider reference actually refers first of all to this "interview" with the founder which you've linked to as the final reference to consider. The second reference relies entirely on that interview, all information provided by the company with no "Independent Content" that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated" with the company. That fails WP:ORGIND. The first reference discusses election forecasting in the context of the German elections. There is some information *about the company* but most of the information concerns the way it goes about producing their "barometers" - and that is all provided by the company. Other parts of the article are concerned with interpreting the barometer for the German election which has nothing to do with evaluating the notability of the topic company. I say that the first reference contains too little in-depth information on the company, failing CORPDEPTH and what information it does provide is not "Independent Content" failing ORGIND.

Finally, you say "but isn’t this the case for most, if not all, articles published in quality publications where journalists do due diligence? Journalists will always seek commentary and information from the article’s subject and/or from people with knowledge of the topic" and this may be true, but our guidelines have been fine-tuned over many years to this point and the guidelines are written from the point of view that a company that is truly notable will be written about in a way that meets our NCORP guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi HighKing, thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed and informative reply. I have reviewed WP:NCORP again and am still unclear about why the references I mentioned would not qualify as “independent”. NCORP refers to “independence of the author” - surely a journalist from a well-known publisher would be considered an independent author “unrelated to the company, organization, or product”? NCORP also refers to “independence of the content” and points to “churnalism” as references that must be avoided. I do not think the references cited here exemplify churnalism in any way, as their content is not “regurgitated” or “copied” from press releases or news agencies. They contain commentary and analysis generated by the authors/journalists themselves. I think this is what I’m finding confusing - the NCORP guidelines say: “Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.” The articles mentioned above seem to contain original and independent analysis and were surely fact-checked by the journalists who wrote them. And those authors/journalists would appear to be “independent” in that they are unaffiliated with any of the companies they cover. So why would the content not be considered independent, even if it does include some information sourced from the company?

To try to understand the type of references required by NCORP, I have reviewed 3 other company pages on which I’d expect to see similar types of references per NCORP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripe_(company)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domo_(company)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_(application)

These pages contain references from similar publications like Bloomberg, Business Insider, TechCrunch, etc. What surprised me is that the majority of the references on these pages appear to be content regurgitated from press releases, fundraising announcements, interviews, and in the case of Buffer, even product feature announcements from the company itself. I cannot see how these latter types of references could be considered “independent” in any way per NCORP guidelines. Could you please point out an example or two amongst these references that would qualify as “independent” under NCORP? This will help me understand what types of references I need to seek when creating other new pages.

Many thanks again for your time and guidance. DGE2021 (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi DGE2021, the easiest way to wrap your head around things (for NCORP related articles) is to think of there being two types of reference. One type is used to support facts and information within an article - any kind of reference, even PRIMARY sources, can be used for this (with the usual caveats like WP:RS, etc). The second type is used to establish notability and this must meet NCORP. Therefore even if an article has 50 references, we only need a minimum of 2 of those to meet NCORP and establish notability.

So back to your references. I've tried to point out what is required and you still say that the references in your draft contain commentary and analysis generated by the authors/journalists themselves. Ok then. Take the Bloomberg reference you mentioned earlier and try to extract from that reference the parts which you claim are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and which contain in-depth information on the *company*. You'll find everything of note is attributed either to the customer, the founder or the funder and while you might argue that there are some individual sentences peppered throughout the article that don't appear to have any attribution (for example, the second sentence in the third paragraph), this doesn't mean that it is "clearly attributable" to the journalist and the context/positioning of the sentences and the tone of the article in general would lead any neutral reader to think otherwise. I can also see that the topic company is very busy promoting itself during this period and most of the same content can also be seen in other articles (such as here) and are directly attributable to the company/founder. Putting everything together - I cannot find anything that meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lüftner Cruises

Just want to acknowledge your very apposite inputs into the discussion there. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:02:26, 20 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jeronemoo

• Jeronemoo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Guaranteed Entrance Token (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey HighKing, thank you for reviewing the page! It seems the notability of the subject hasn't been proven by the given sources. Could you help me understand what does count? I've read the links provided so I got a general impression of what is not accepted, but it's harder to understand what will be accepted.
Does 'independent content' mean anyone involved in the subject can't be involved with the source? I.e. the video regarding a Dutch talkshow talking about the subject with the CEO as guest, is that not valid due to the CEO being there? If it's about a talkshow not being reliable, would the same interview being done by a Dutch news outlet be valid?
Thank you in advance!

Jeronemoo (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That is correct Jeronemoo, if the information/data is originating from the organization and/or persons affiliated with the organization then it isn't usually good enough to meet the definition for "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Black in AI

A note was left for you on the page Draft:Black in AI. Thank you for your time. Joojay (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)