User talk:HighKing/Archives/2017/August

DeSilva + Phillips

Thanks for your prior and latest round of comments on the page. I appreciate the time you are taking to review and thoughtfully explain your concerns. Could I trouble you to take a look at my latest thoughts on the AFD discussion when you have a moment? Thanks again. Deaconbluesx 02:06 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Deaconbluesx Some editors don't like AfD's getting off topic and overly long, so I'll respond here instead.

If you take a step back and think about what the spirit of the policies and guidelines around notability are, they're very simple. Essentially we are trying to avoid Wikipedia being manipulated for promotion and advocacy.

For companies and organizations, "marketing" is just normal business practice. Over time, marketing has evolved beyond simple advertising in print where an ad is paid for and published. Today, companies make announcements to the point where churnalism is common. So how does Wikipedia distinguish between sources which have been generated through self-promotion and other forms of sources?

Over time, the policies and guidelines we use as the criteria for establishing notability have evolved. Put in their simplest form - if "somebody else" talks about the topic then the topic is notable. Of course that "somebody else" has to meet the criteria for reliable sources. But that is just the first step - finding reliable sources.

Most editors stop there and assume that a mention in a reliable source means the topic is notable and this leads to 99% of the "debate" at AfDs, but the most important step is ensuring that the reliable source isn't churnalism. If the material (information, data, viewpoints, etc) in the article published by the reliable source all originates from the company, this isn't an acceptable source *for the purposes of establishing notabilty*. So articles (and again, all churnalism, including where interviews are published in part of in their entirety, sponsored events, interviews on TV, "stories" based on company announcements or based extensively on quotations from company sources, etc, are put aside *for the purposes of establishing notability*.

Primarily, we are looking for a minimum of two sources that talk about the company - what it does and why it is notable.

With that in mind, lets say an individual (who is an expert in their field) who works for a company is interviewed on TV. Wikipedia does not regard these references as meeting the criteria for the purposes of establishing notability. For example, the interview may not have any content about the company at all (which is usually the case) so this is viewed as a mere "mention in passing" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Or perhaps it is the person being interviewed that is notable (and notability isn't inherited).

Hope that helps. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

HighKing That does help, thank you! I agree, some of this isn't for the actual AfD discussion related to the specific page under consideration, but broader principles. In many respects professional firms, like D+P, are notable because their senior partners are notable. Notable firms are those that have a critical mass of notable experts. This is why clients, and journalists, seek them out for their view on industry events and for professional counsel. To me, having an expert opinion featured in the press about a possible merger or acquisition, or a recently completed deal, or trends in the industry isn't actually churnalism or marketing (at least as I understand the concept). Notable firms and their experts are those whose opinions are sought on topical and substantive issues (not about the firm's products and services). In my experience this is how the professional services sector operates, and it is being a "go to" source for perspectives on industry or economic issues that elevates a firm in the eyes of the world. This is why I've included references with senior partners talking about the industry and broader issues, and not talking about the firm's products, services, solutions, etc. I've curated a selection of these examples, but there are many more available online that repetitively make the case that D+P is a "go to" firm for insights on the media industry, in particular.

Separately, there is the challenge that many external company profiles, rankings and lists that would provide more validation on notability within the industry are 'subscription only' documents that are not available to public view. For example, Signal Hill posted one of their presentations Q4 2013 Internet & Digital Media Market Snapshot. On Slide #4 DeSilva+Philips is listed as on left side as #7 in the Top 10 investment banks in the area of Internet Content & Commerce, which was true then and I know to be true today. Unfortunately, this slide from a competitive firm is based on proprietary, non-public research reports that require a paid subscription to access, such as those produced by Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, Institutional Investor and others for the industry. In turn, here is DeSilva + Phillips on an independent list of top 200 investment banks Top 200 Investment Banks and Boutiques. This is in the public domain and can be referenced, but I wasn't sure it was making the case better than other references of experts talking about real trends with real substance. Net: I hadn't included either reference in the page, because I wasn't sure if they helped the case. What do you think? Any extra counsel is welcome. Thanks for listening! Deaconbluesx 06:16 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi High King. I found another article on the firm's website about their founding as a firm. "The Media Bankers" Co-Founders Reed Phillips and Roland DeSilva are on the cover and the article begins to talk about the firm on PDF page #3, article page #35 right hand column. Is this the type of independent, journalist coverage that is helpful? ---Deaconbluesx 06:53 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Deaconbluesx, if the topic was DeSilva then sure, this would help. The topic is not about the people, it is about the firm. Notability is not inherited. The firm must pass the criteria for establishing notability on its own and without relying on the founder's notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 00:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks HighKing. I'm just trying to reconcile your last comment with what I'm reading in this reference, as well as other references, that go far beyond just talking about the founders. There is content about the firm, its history, what makes it distinctive, etc. I won't fill you page with text, but here is an extraction from the Media Bankers piece. What am I missing relative to your assessment? Thanks.

“...At DeSilva & Phillips LLC, which also has a partner from JEGI, there's an even split between consumer media and business-to-business media....By Late 1995, when Phillip’s agreed over lunch and on a handshake to co-found his own media investment bank, new partner Roland DeSilva had been in media's burgeoning M&A game for more than a decade. Phillips...said he'd rather build equity in his own M&A advisory firm. Desilva immediately saw the potential of teaming with Phillips, but others also recognized how powerful their pairing could be. 'You've got a real Mr. Inside and a real Mr. Outside there,' Edmiston says, 'whereas Wilma and I were about the same at each. And neither of us was good at math, so we always hired number crunchers.'...Elaborating on this theme, a former DeSilva & Phillips managing director confirms a productive balance between Phillips' analytical skills and DeSilva's being "into people issues - and people issues are half of what doing deals is about." Giving those issues as much weight as financial matters would later become a hallmark of the partnership, compelling it to retain a business psychologist—a woman who specializes in stress management—as a senior adviser. 'We don't bring her into the deals themselves,' DeSilva says of a practice unique among media banks, 'but she helps us through the shoals you have to navigate in any transaction. Getting past seller's remorse can be especially tricky...By her actions, anyway, Jordan also sensed a formidability about the partnership that would become her biggest competitor. Through JEGI, she filed a com­plaint against the partial breakaway, charging Desilva with tortious interference and Phillips with violating a non-compete agreement. Her firm would wind up vacating the action, Desilva says, but only after the judge let on that JECH was 'crazy for bringing suit.' Adds Phillips, 'We were flattered that she thought we'd be that competitive ...complementary skills sets like those credited to DeSilva and Phillips weren’t new to investment banking...' ---Deaconbluesx 12:49 01 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've highlighted in purple above the sections that are about the company and "usable". I've highlighted sections in orange that are "anonymous" or un-attributed. This also affects subsequent statements that build from the anonymous source and are likewise unusable (e.g. "would later become a hallmark of the partnership"). The quotes from DeSilva and/or Philips are a PRIMARY source and therefore also not usable for the purposes of establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks HighKing. I appreciate the comments, and the follow-up message on my Talk page. This is not my first page, just the first time I've had a page deleted. I understand the concerns and will see if new references come to light in the next few months that would warrant revisiting the page. Thanks for your time and responsiveness all along the way. ---Deaconbluesx 02:58 06 August 2017 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi,

I'm happy to create an account but need to do a little checking first. I did have an account four or five years ago but can't remember the name or the password, so I just want to make sure that it's allowed to create a new one before I do. 78.145.35.155 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's not a problem, so this is my new account. 6of1 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)