Talk:Entotrust certification

three sources that support a claim to notability?

@Antikdeal1, can you tell us which three sources represent significant coverage in non-affiliated reliable sources? Valereee (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Valereee for you input, I added various independent sources where the Entotrust certification is covered or mentioned. Articles, journals, thesis and market analysis. Citations are from 5 to 12. Kind regards. Antikdeal1 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Antikdeal1! Thanks for responding. Source #5 appears to be from a press release from Entotrust, so not independent. #6 appears to be written by a company that has received certification, so again not independent. #7 appears to be a blog (and so not reliable) and a bare mention (so not significant coverage). None of these represents

1. WP:significant coverage in
2. WP:reliable sources that are
3. WP:independent of the subject.

We need THREE SOURCES (not 8, telling me to look at 5-12 means you're expecting me to do the work for you of proving this company is notable, and I am a volunteer here), each one of which fulfills ALL THREE REQUIREMENTS. That is Wikipedia's minimum requirement for an article: that the subject is notable.

If you are en employee of Entotrust or one of the companies that has received certification, you'll also need to also disclose your conflict of interest per WP:COI. Please do that as soon as possible. Valereee (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Valereee sorry it was not my intention to create overload, and by chance the first 3 mentioned citations do not represent the given 3 requirements, I agree and sorry again.

As I am also a volunteer and sustainability passionate, I count on this article to affirm what this certification is worth for people and the planet.

The following four cited sources in the article are the right ones fulfilling the wiki requirements:

9. Independent Industry Magazine, article on FI Food Innovation by Informa (listed organization at London Stock Exch., 10.000 employees)

Title "European insect entrepreneurs celebrate EFSA's approval of yellow mealworm" by Michail, Niamh. figlobal.com. 2021-01-18.

10. Industry Paper . Title: "Is Cricket Protein Powder the Modern Ingredient for the Protein Powder Market?". by Thomas, Isabelle. Australasian Agribusiness Perspectives 2021, ISSN: 2209-6612. Volume 24 (Paper 14): page 214.

11. Market Analysis and players report, . Title: "Insect-Based Ingredients Market Analysis - Industry Report - Trends, Size & Share". by consulting firm MI Mordor Intelligence. www.mordorintelligence.com. Covered in chapter 6, Subchapter 6.3.10.

12. Academic paper. Title: Edible insects. A roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging Australian industry. by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) and the Australia’s National Science Agency. Page.29

Thank you again for your patience, and contribution. Regards Antikdeal1 (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Antikdeal1. Source #9 says about Entotrust in its entirety: Brands looking to provide consumers even greater reassurance can opt for third-party certification offered by Dusseldorf-headquartered Entotrust. It takes into account criteria such as allergens and ingredient authenticity, environmental impacts and social fairness, and the microbiological profile, and certified producers can add the Entotrust logo to their products.

French company Minus Farms certifies its products according to Entotrust’s standards,

That is not significant coverage. It's barely more than a mention in an article that is about a different subject (that is, not the company): the EFSA's approval of the yellow mealworm. We need to see significant coverage: sources that discuss the article subject -- in this case, the company -- in depth. They also need to be in reliable sources that are not affiliated with the subject. There need to be three of them, and at least two should be from outside of industry niche publications or the company's local area.

Entotrust may very well be important to the edible insects industry, but that doesn't make it a notable suject for an encyclopedia. It could maybe be mentioned at Edible insects? It doesn't look like it's included there at all. That would be a good first step, and then we can create a redirect from Entotrust certification. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Valeree, indeed the edible insects and alternative protein "industry" is growing and the Entotrust certification. The references #10 11 and 12 are the kind of coverage you mention, being independent, scientific and market analysis sources. I believe mass-media (out of the industry related articles) may talk soon, it is a thriving sector, worth to be described for the positive environmental and health outcomes is bringing. The suggestion on Edible Insects is definitely key and I'll work on it soon. Thank you for your inputs and time. AD Antikdeal1 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Valeree, I just did the redirect you suggested, hope I understood it right. To the article Edibel Insects (or Insects as Food). Thank you again AD Antikdeal1 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So, here's the thing. If 10, 11, and 12 are the ones, why did you give me #9? I literally have zero interest in #10, 11, 12 because you've twice now given me 5-12 and then 9-12, and when I started checking I found nothing. This is why we ask you to provide 3. Not 8, not 4. 3 is what it takes. If you give me 8 or 4 and the first ones I check don't do it, I have zero motivation to keep working because I am doing this as a volunteer not particularly interested in this subject. You are asking me to check multiple sources that don't prove notability, which is the crucial question. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

dear Valeree I am mortified, it was not intention to provide overload, just my misunderstanding. I thought more sources would have been the best, then you clarified how it works and which kind of sources. I am really sorry Antikdeal1 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Antikdeal1, no worries, I know this is a difficult concept. Writing an article from scratch is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. We have a bewildering array of policy to learn, and trying to overcome that very steep learning curve all at once -- which is basically what you have to do to write an article from scratch -- is incredibly frustrating. I am truly sorry I made you feel mortified! I should have exercised greater patience, as I know you're new. It's my bad, not yours.

There's a really good place to get help from experienced editors with questions about editing, WP:Teahouse. It's a place new editors can ask questions about policy, editing, sources, etc. We do want your contributions, and we do know how hard it is to write an article from scratch, especially when you're new here. The crucial issue is WP:Notability, and the way you prove that is with WP:significant coverage. Please do read both of those links.

For new editors, who are facing a very steep learning curve, it's often better to first work here by improving existing articles. This lets you learn policy sort of organically rather than having to learn everything all at once. Valereee (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

thank you indeed for the guidance and inspiration, more clear and valuable links Antikdeal1 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Valeree, what would be the next step for the article, during review phase, thank you Antikdeal1 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Antikdeal1, the only step forward is finding three sources that support a claim to notability and telling us which three those are. Literally without a supported claim to notability, we cannot move this to article space. It's the minimum requirement here. Valereee (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Valeree, the 3 following sources are verifiable, reliable and independent, also notability is given by the geographically located sources from Europe to Australasia.

· Journal – by key university in Europe, Wageningen, The Netherlands (source# 1)

· Paper – by key university, Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide (source# 8)

· Case Study – by Australia’s National Science Agency (source# 13)

Following the detailed references into the article:

>#1. S. Floto-Stammen, B. Stroh and N. Naranjo-Guevara (2022). “Packaging communication as a tool to reduce disgust at edible insect”. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed. VOLUME 8 – SUPPLEMENT 1: 122. ISSN2352-4588 via Wageningen Academic Publishers.

>#8. Thomas, Isabelle. “Is Cricket Protein Powder the Modern Ingredient for the Protein Powder Market?” (PDF). Australasian Agribusiness Perspectives 2021. 24 (Paper 14): 214. ISSN2209-6612.

>#13. Lessard BD, Ponce-Reyes R (April 2021). “Edible insects. A roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging industry” (PDF). CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation). Australia’s National Science Agency.: 29.

Two additional notes:

> worth to consider, under the Wikipedia core topic article of Insects as Food there is community consensus in having a paragraph describing the Entotrust purpose and activity in supporting the alternative proteins growth and consumers’ acceptance.

> an international market surveys firm dedicated a report chapter to Entotrust under Competitive Landscape (art.reference #12) "Insect-Based Ingredients Market Analysis - Industry Report - Trends, Size & Share".

Thank you and regards. AD Antikdeal1 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)