User talk:HighKing/Archives/2022/March

Your Opinion

Hey, hope you are doing well. Wanted to have your expert opinion with respect to WP:NCORP for Draft:Apna (Company). I moved it from mainspace because I wasn't certain of current notability but it seemed to have potential with The Ken story, comparison with Naukri.com at CNBC article and Forbes one. The others form their foundation on this becoming a unicorn (funding related news!) but has some independent comments.

Also, check Draft:BoAt Lifestyle. I think it was notable because of The Ken and Quartz story. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, starting with Draft:Apna (Company), there is a lot of noise surrounding this company following a blizzard of announcements by the company. Just to be clear, we require "Independent Content" (that is *clearly* attributable to an *unaffiliated* source) that contains *in-depth* info about the topic company. Your question appears to imply that "comparison with Naukri" and their "unicorn" status has generated "independent comments" which meet the criteria - just to be clear, I don't really care so much for articles that provide a detailed picture of the company but using information provided by the company or a founder and that same article might end with a single sentence opinion from the journalist that appears to be "Independent Content". This still fails NCORP because the in-depth info was not "Independent Content". Each reference used to establish notability must meet both CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND, if the parts of the article that meet ORGIND fails CORPDEPTH or the parts that meet CORPDEPTH fails ORGIND, that's still a fail. We need parts of articles (or entire articles) that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH at the same time.

• The Ken story (in my opinion) doesn't contain any in-depth information. It begins by talking about how Ms. Kishan experiences difference job-hunting websites and creates the picture of a "predicament" which Apna's solution can address. It then quote numbers from a "recent press release" and repeats Apna's story which has been "pitched from inception". It ends with a quote (oft-repeated) from the founder about "color-coded discrimination" - a theme that is repeated in many other articles. There is no clearly identifiable in-depth "Independent Content" information in the article - fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
• This CNBC video segment is a "reaction" piece following their announcement of a Series C round of funding. Watching the segment (with their helpful Powerpoint-like background slides showing "targets skilled professionals" and lists "Carpenters, Painters, Tele callers, Field sales agents, Delivery personnel". So when you see the exact same list showing up in an article in Business Standard a month later (Apna’s app comprises over 70 communities for skilled professionals like carpenters, painters, tele-callers, field sales agents and delivery personnel), I'm pretty sure it isn't "Independent Content". And likewise when I see the contents of the slide showing their customers showing up a couple of days earlier in this Economic Times article then I'm pretty sure that what we're seeing is a result of company PR and that the rest of the video segment is simply regurgitating company information. Fails ORGIND.
• The Forbes article is based entirely on information provided by the founder and the article is based on an interview. There is nothing in this long puff-profile that can be identified as "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.

You also mention Draft:BoAt Lifestyle but from what I can see, those references suffer the exact same defects for meeting our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, I also note that this article was recently deleted for failing to meet notability criteria. Why are you recreating this topic? Do you have an interest or conflict that you should declare? Do you receive payments for editing? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your perspective on both. I wasn't sure about Apna either. A lot of funding related clutter. I did see BoAT lifestyle differently but I do see your point of view here. I don't remember seeing a deletion discussion on any of these (not sure which of the two you were referring to). Apna was a new article that I moved to drafts. BoAT lifestyle was in drafts. From what I see, it was deleted as an abandoned draft. I am neither recreating it nor I have a conflict of interest. This came as an AFC submission with a bunch of others from same creator who reached out on my talk page. I also do not receive any payments for editing. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Independent Sources

Dear HighKing,

Thank you for your comments and explanation.

I've just removed from the reference list Inc. publications and replaced them with four (references 11-14) unbiased, independent, and non-sponsored sources which cover the firm, its practices, and its members.

These references should meet the requirements for establishing notability, please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be worked on.

Best, Leon Lgrinis (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Lgrinis:, the comment I left on your Draft pointed you to WP:NCORP and in particular, the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections. In particular you need to look at the definition of "Independent Content" in ORGIND. You say that you added four "unbiased, independent and non-sponsored sources".

• The first reference from nasdaq.com is entirely based on an interview with "Eyob Yohannes, the director of Marketing and Creative Services at Caldwell Intellectual Property Law" as it states at the beginning of the second paragraph. How is that independent? Or unbiased? Where is the in-depth information *on the company* in that article? This reference fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
• This from abovethelaw is the same puff profile as the inc.com pieces and the nasdaq piece. It also says in the very first paragraph "I was very pleased, therefore, to have had the opportunity for an introductory call post-IP Dealmakers with the chair of Caldwell IP’s Life Sciences Patent Group, Katherine Ann Rubino". No "Independent Content". Same as above, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
• This from inc.com is entirely based on an interview with the founder? I have no idea how or why you'd consider this unbiased and independent. Fails ORGIND.
• Finall this fro lifestarr.com is also an interview with the founder. Same as above, also fails ORGIND.

BTW, you say you removed the inc.com references because they were sponsored. Be aware that you can think about there being two types of references with different "standards". You can use any reliable source (including the inc.com references) to support the content of an article so long as overall the article is balanced and neutral, etc. When we are examining notability, references must meet other criteria - which is where NCORP comes in. Not all references need to meet NCORP - just a minimum of two - but its a tough standard. Essentially we need references where a neutral third party provides in-depth information on the company and their own analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc - so regurgitating/rewording/rephrasing information provided by the company or their execs fails that criteria (as above). HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing,

After reviewing the platform's "Independent Content" definitions, the previously submitted references satisfy Wikipedia's NCORP, CORPDEPTH, and ORGIND requirements,

You stated:

"The first reference from nasdaq.com is entirely based on an interview with "Eyob Yohannes, the director of Marketing and Creative Services at Caldwell Intellectual Property Law" as it states at the beginning of the second paragraph. How is that independent? Or unbiased? Where is the in-depth information *on the company* in that article? This reference fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND".

           Under the “Significant Coverage”, CORPDETH, standard, a “[d]eep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.” Although the article by NASDAQ is partially based on an interview with Eyob Yohannes, the article also provides that the author performed sufficient independent research such as in this section describing the company:

"Yohannes joined Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, a law firm in Boston. Upon some research, it turns out that they are the fastest-growing law firm in America according to the Inc. 5000 list, which suggests that they are in need of more talent and may explain why they were willing to take a chance on a hire who lacked the direct experience."

           Furthermore, this article also meets the “Independent Sources”, ORGIND, standard for the author being “unrelated to the company, organization, or product.” As exemplified at the Conclusion section of the article, the author describes his own professional experience, “[a]s someone with over 20 years in the recruitment industry.”

This interview article provides independently verified information that amounts to more than trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by an author unrelated to the company, as the content extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. Therefore, the NASDAQ article meet the requirements of both CORPDETH and ORGIND standards.

You further state that:

"This [article] from abovethelaw is the same puff profile as the inc.com pieces and the nasdaq piece. It also says in the very first paragraph "I was very pleased, therefore, to have had the opportunity for an introductory call post-IP Dealmakers with the chair of Caldwell IP’s Life Sciences Patent Group, Katherine Ann Rubino". No "Independent Content". Same as above, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND".

           Although the quote above introduces Katherine Rubino to the reader, the article starts with the following:

"It is not every day that a boutique IP law firm is profiled in Inc. magazine, much less highlighted two years in a row as one of the fastest-growing businesses in the U.S., as well as the fastest-growing law firm for 2021."

           This meets the standard set by CORPDETH as it provides an overview of the company that was independently verified by the author. The article also meets the requirements of ORGIND as the author is “unrelated to the company, organization, or product.” The article provides the following information about its author:

"Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters."

           Preceding the section quoted by the editor, the author also provides their reasoning for reaching out to Kathrine Rubino as unrelated to the company and based on the author’s own independent research, such as the following:

"As we approach the end of 2021, a year that saw increased attention on patent law’s gender gap, I think it is fitting to spotlight a firm that is doing its best to render that gender gap a relic of the past."

            This article meets the requirements of both CORPDETH, as it provides an overview independently verified, and ORGIND, as it was authored by “unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.”

You further state that:

"[t]his [article] from inc.com is entirely based on an interview with the founder? I have no idea how or why you'd consider this unbiased and independent. Fails ORGIND."

            This article may focus on an interview with Keegan Caldwell, founder of the company, but the information in the article is written, and independently verified, by an author that is unaffiliated with the company and does not have any vested interested in the subject.

As per your previous comment:

“[n]ot all references need to meet NCORP - just a minimum of two - but its a tough standard. Essentially, we need references where a neutral third party provides in-depth information on the company and their own analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc - so regurgitating/rewording/rephrasing information provided by the company or their execs fails that criteria.”

I submit that all three articles mentioned above provide in-depth information on the company, and they are written by authors unaffiliated with the company and all information in those articles were independently verified by their authors. Therefore, all three articles meet the requirements set by CORPDETH and ORGIND.

Best,

Leon Lgrinis (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lgrinis, when I say that an article is "based entirely" on information provided by the company, it means that once you remove the parts that fail ORGIND, you're not left with enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH. For example, at the nasdaq.com reference, you say that the following meets ORGIND:

• "Yohannes joined Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, a law firm in Boston. Upon some research, it turns out that they are the fastest-growing law firm in America according to the Inc. 5000 list, which suggests that they are in need of more talent and may explain why they were willing to take a chance on a hire who lacked the direct experience."

and I agree. But it doesn't meet CORPDEPTH. We need both. There isn't enough in the nasdaq.com article to satisfy NCORP because all of the CORPDEPTH info relies entirely on info provided by sources affiliated with the company.

I don't follow your logic or your arguments for abovethelaw.com. You appear to say that the first sentence of the article meets CORPDEPTH. Have you read CORPDEPTH? Can you explain more precisely how a single introductory sentence meets CORPEPTH exactly? I'm particularly interested because it says almost nothing about the subject other than (a) they're a boutique law firm which were "profiled" in inc.com (and we know these were puff-profiles, a fact you've previously ackowledged) and (b) they were "highlighted" (where precisely?) as "one of the" fastest-growing businesses in the US (i.e. listed at No. 349 in INC.com's annual list of "fastest growing private companies in America) as well as the fastest-growing law firm in 2021 (same list). Of course they don't tell you that this list is something you need to apply for and pay for and is a rubbish list for any meaningful purpose other than for companies to use it for PR purposes. To be perfectly blunt, not only does *none* of that sentence meet CORPDEPTH, but the fact that abovethelaw purports to rely on regurgitating the subject's PR (paid PR masquerading as 3rd party recognition) and repeat those claims highlights to me the *lack* of fact-checking in this abovethelaw article. Finally, not sure why you've cherry-picked a small part of the ORGIND definition, but please pay attention also to the bit that says ORGIND requires content that is *clearly* attributable to a source *unaffiliated* with the subject. I say, once again, that once you remove the information that fails ORGIND, you're left with very little content that is *clearly* attributable to an *unaffiliated source* that deals with the company and the remaining pieces are certainly not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. In effect, this abovethelaw piece relies on Inc.com puff profiles (such as this puff profile talking about the Gender Gap) and the interview. There isn't a solid ORGIND sentence in it. It is an advertisement masquerading as news.

The inc.com article is based entirely on an interview - you've acknowledged that. But then you go on to try to say that the entirely of the content was independently verified by the journalist. With respect, that's nonsense. The job of the journalist in this circumstance is to faithfully record and reproduce what is said in the interview. Nothing more. And there's nothing in the article that says that the journalist went above and beyond and fact-checked everything that was said in the interview because (a) he wouldn't be paid extra as the word-count wouldn't change and (b) he's never be asked to interview anyone ever again.

Your best bet (and my advice to you) is to stop trying to wiki-lawyer through guidelines and just find other references (if they exist) that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, HighKing. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 12:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)