User talk:HighKing/Archives/2018/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Feedback - Wikipedia article: Azad Foundation

Hello HighKing, Thanks for reviewing the article "Azad Foundation". I am deleting the draft, as I doubt its salvageable. Thanks though. Thepermanenturl (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft of ESDS Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Hello HighKing,

Thanks for reviewing my article. I need guidance as I'm writing for the first time.

I have some queries as below -

ESDS Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is actually a renowned and one of the leading data centers and managed service providers in India. It has received US and UK Patents (numbers mentioned in the draft) for the eNlight cloud’s vertical scaling technology and its Wikipedia page is also there as referenced earlier in this new draft. Okay, I got to know that another Wikipedia article's reference is not valid so I have removed that but, the other link references given are from reliable sources as observed in other published articles. I have seen the pages of Ctrl S, Amazon AWS, and Microsoft’s Azure too and took cues from that.

I’m really not able to figure out what is lacking. Kindly explain in detail.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darshana1818 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Darshana1818, my advice is to become familiar with WP:NCORP and especially the sections WP:ORGIND (and the sub-section on "Dependent coverage") and WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria for references used to establish notability is different and stricter than the criteria for references used to support facts or assertions within an article. A reference that establishes notability must be "intellectually independent" - that is, "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. The last part of that sentence is usually what lets references down. The references included in the Draft are mostly "Dependent content" (churnalism) and also rely extensively on company sources by way of quotations/interviews failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:25:36, 7 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sakgroups


I have submitted a new page and got it rejected. Need more tips about how to give additional references and make the subject suitable for Wikipedia.

We have submitted many films under Filmography but don't know how to provide references to this. Please help. Thanks

Sakgroups (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sakgroups, the most common reason for pages being rejected/deleted is because there aren't enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. In this case, there are no references whatsoever. HighKing++ 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 11:24:23, 10 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by KarenRutter


Good day. You left a message referring to my article on Ditikeni: " None of the references show original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, therefore fails". I would beg to differ - the references are from independent sources such as (highly regarded) newspapers, and cover the subject in some detail. PLease would you reconsider - I honestly feel my references are original and independent, and reputable.

Best regards, Karen KarenRutter (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi KarenRutter, the criteria for references used to establish notability are different that the criteria for references used to support facts/assertions within an article. The former demands that the reference is both functionally and intellectually independent and WP:ORGIND notes 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.
So, while I agree with you that the references are "independent sources" (within the meaning of "functional independence") and "reputable", we are looking to see whether there is any "opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" from the journalist/author and not just a regurgitation of company announcements, accounts, etc. We are also looking for in-depth independent analysis on the company (and not on, for example, a product or the CEO, etc).
With that in mind, turning to the references, I have reread the ones included in the article and in summary, there is only one good reference. One more is required. The Bloomburg references is a simple listing that takes its information from Ditkeni sources and repeats it in summary form (fails ORGIND). The Advance Call reference is from a connected company and therefore not intellectually independent (fails ORGIND). Neither the Labour Protect reference not this Business Report reference mentions or refers to the company. The Annual reports are PRIMARY sources and fails ORGIND. This other Business Report reference has no attributed author/journalist and fails as an acceptable reference. It also appears to rely entirely on quotations/interview with connected sources and I cannot identify any "Independent content ... clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject", fails ORGIND. This Sunday Times reference is a good reference and in my opinion meets the criteria for establishing notability. The Bizcommunity reference relies on a company announcement and a connected source and is therefore "Dependent coverage" and fails ORGIND. Both This Mail&Guardian reference and this M&G reference are substantially the same article. Both lack in-depth independent reporting on the company itself as the articles are concerned with the 40 question checklist and not the organization, failing CORPDEPTH. This CityPress reference is an interview with Sahra Ryklief, a connected source, fails ORGIND. C4D is part of ICCO, an investor, fails ORGIND. Adept Advisory has received investment from the company therefore a connected company, not intellectually independent, fails ORGIND.
I note though that Ditikeni is a "public limited company" and therefore I suspect that it may have been covered by independent analysts or a research report written or perhaps a book? In general, sources like these qualify as good sources for the purposes of establishing independence.
Finally, be aware that there are a number of other "problems" with the article as it currently stands (formatting, promotional non-encyclopedic language and unnecessary inclusion of lists of Directors and Management Team) but these are eary to fix. HighKing++ 15:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 06:57:13, 12 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by KarenRutter


Good day HighKing, Thank you for your feedback regarding the Ditikeni article. I shall make sure to get hold of at least one more reputable reference. And then followby cleanin up language etc, as you have mentioned, regards, Karen 

KarenRutter (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


KarenRutter (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Vecna Robotics

HighKing - Thank you for reviewing Draft:Vecna Robotics. I've left a comment on the page for your review. E-Stylus (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mangrove Capital Partners

Hi there High King

Yesterday you reviewed the draft article for 'Mangrove Capital Partners' and declined it on the basis that it didn't feature third party articles referencing the company but the references include in-depth third party articles about the VC firm itself, highlighting that it is one of Europe's most successful firms, in some of the most respected media outlets globally including Bloomberg, Financial Times and TechCrunch: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/mangrove-capital-raises-170-million-for-startups-not-sell-outs https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/19/mangrove-raises-170m-for-its-new-fund-to-invest-in-europe-and-israeli-startups/ https://www.ft.com/content/68c795ca-a680-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97

It has also be named as one of the top firms in Europe by the leading venture capital research company CB Insights: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/europe-venture-capital-investor-map/ https://www.bankingtech.com/2017/09/europes-top-venture-capital-investors-by-country-cb-insights/

The firm's partners have also featured among other 'unicorn hunters' in major newspapers: https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2017/jul/25/nows-the-time-for-change-in-venture-capital-meet-the-unicorn-hunters

Could you possibly review again and let me know if these are adequate?

Thanks!

Blockywocky (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Blockywocky, just be aware that I was the original nominator at AfD which resulted in this article being deleted. In my opinion, nothing has changed since then. You should really familiarise yourself with WP:NCORP and especially the sections WP:ORGIND (and the sub-section "Dependent coverage") and WP:CORPDEPTH. Of particular note is the following: 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. Looking at the references you've linked to above, this Bloomberg reference fails ORGIND since the information originates from the firm and from the founders - therefore not "intellectually independent". This techcrunch reference is an example of "Dependent coverage" since it is based on a press release and/or company announcement and therefore fails as a reference to establish notability. This FT article is an interview with Jackson, a partner at Mangrove, therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It contains zero information on Mangrove, the topic of this article. Finally, the topic is the firm, not the partners. I've looked again and there just isn't an intellectually independent reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I see thanks for clarification High King. Does the CB Insights analysis of top firms count as intellectually independent?: 

https://www.cbinsights.com/research/europe-venture-capital-investor-map/

Blockywocky (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blockywocky, getting a mention in a list is not considered to meet the criteria for establishing notability, especially when nothing significant is said about the company. HighKing++ 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! Mangrove Capital Partners was covered in an intellectually independent article on Forbes.com which provided an analysis of top performing investors (this is the most respected analysis of the venture capital industry). I've added it to the page. Hopefully this is sufficient? url=https://www.forbes.com/global/2007/0212/074.html#2afb88ef5fe8

Blockywocky (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blockywocky:, it isn't a case that a reference must meet ORGIND *or* some other part of NCORP - in order for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability, it must meet all of the requirements. The Forbes reference is about one of the partners and only name-checks the company - since there is no in-depth information on the company in the reference, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 18:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

/* Your submission at Articles for creation: Excelencia in Education (December 9) */ - appealing

Good morning, I left a message for you on my talk page asking you to reconsider your judgment that the National Latino Education Advocacy group I created an entry for was "not notable." Please take a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venndiagram8 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies (Venndiagram8, I'll respond on your Talk page. HighKing++ 18:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Happy holidays! And notice

I have posted a response on EclecticIQ's AfD. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello HighKing: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighKing/Archives/2018/December&oldid=998905206"