User talk:HighKing/Archives/2018/October

Umm...

Does this and this satisfy the quality of sourcing required to pass NCORP? ∯WBG^converse 16:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric. in my opinion, not even close.

The author of the Financial Express article shows that it is a syndicated piece from the Indo-Asian News Service with no named journalist - therefore arguably fails as a reliable source. The exact same article is also published by the Business Standard, Yahoo and lots of others. The first sentence says at its store here which indicates the article is based on the launch/company announcement and is therefore classified as "dependent coverage". Furthermore, a variant is published by Ind Today which includes much of the shorter article published by the Financial Express. It is noteworthy that from this longer article, we can see that the article (which also has no author) includes additional information including quotations from the co-founder. From WP:ORGIND, 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. Clearly, these articles are not intellectually independent and fails ORGIND.

Again, the article is based on a relatively straight-forward corporate event - the opening of a new store - with phrases such as "Amrapali Jewels, a brand whose legacy precedes it"; "have been working tirelessly" to get the store in Pakistan for the past three years" and "With the price range falling between Rs2,500 and Rs300,000, Amrapali offers a versatile range that can be donned with western and eastern outfits." Most telling is that the store opening was also covered by diamondworld.net (different "author") and contains a summarized version of the exact same information. Amazingly it also uses the exact same phrases! Clearly, this is not "intellectually independent" and was produced in conjunction with the company - hence the exact same phrases turning up in "different" publications.

The above is my opinion on both those sources - I haven't looked at the article in question (yet) as it hasn't hit my radar. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Question, deletion of article "Roccor"

I just saw that you deleted the article "Roccor" and am disappointed with the decision. I am struggling to understand the WP:NCORP terms and believe that the references listed are consistent with dozens of other similar organizations (small NewSpace startups) that are published and thriving on Wikipedia. I respect the work Wikipedia editors do to ensure that the content remains notable and believe this to be a very important aspect of the site. As such, I wrote the Roccor article in a manner I considered to be factual, brief and not as an advertisement one would see in the "yellow pages". I request that you reinstate the article so I can continue to work on this article to bring it up to the standards the Wikipedia team deems as appropriate. I would be happy to reconnect with you in near future to receive further feedback on proposed changes. Thanks bld175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bld175 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bld175, I didn't delete the article but I can see it was deleted by Malcolmxl5 on 5th October. Your best bet is to follow up with Malcolmx15 or requesting a deletion review at WP:DRV. There needs to be two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The most common causes for failure are that references must be "intellectually independent" - see WP:ORGIND - and in-depth - see WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I will be in touch with Malcolmxl5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bld175 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)