User talk:HighKing/Archives/2022/February

What do you think about

Using research/academic articles for WP:CORPDEPTH for companies published in reputed journals? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, in my experience, it always comes down to the content of those articles and how much "Independent Content" is identifiable. As a first comment though, it is (usually/often) a red herring when people talk about "reputed journals" or "reputable newspaper" - doesn't matter a jot so long as the publication meets WP:RS and trying to rank one RS publication as being better/worse than another RS publication is a false flag, they're either good for the purposes of establishing notability or they're not, there's unlikely to be a grey area on this.

You mention CORPDEPTH - for me the biggest hurdle is likely to be ORGIND. Bear in mind the reference must assist in establishing notability of the article topic. So it the topic is a company, then it must be about the company - and if the topic is a product, the reference must establish notability of the product. Usually in my experience, research/academic articles/papers focus on products and not companies.

Back to your specific question - if a research/academic article is to assist in establishing notability of the topic company, then so long as they contain in-depth information that is "Independent Content" about the company, that's good. But if the research/academic paper, lets say, simply uses a product made by the company, then you need to look closely. For example, suppose a research paper is about "Oil pollution" and the paper authors set about publishing their results on products and methods to remove pollutant from seawater. In their paper they have a paragraph like this "We next tried OilAwayNow, a product from OilAwayNow Inc, a Texas company founded in 2005 by Prof.XYZ that has received over $100 million in government funding. In 2018 they received $200 million from the JBTrust Investment partners valuing their company at over $1B. We liked the product, it was easy to use, just spray from a helicopter over the oil spill every day for 4 days and the oil spill is turned into an organic sludge that sinks below the surface and breaks down within 2 months. Below, see the tables showing the efficacy rates, volume cleared and comparisons with other products."

For me, this is focused on the product and the minimal company description resembles the usual corporate blurb. What do you think? If you've something specific in mind it may be easier to examine with a concrete example at hand. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, writing boilerplate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome (2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin and so on is not that helpful. It is not easy to assume good faith in that case.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

When you've been at as many NCORP AfDs as I have, it would be daft not to. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"as I have" Who did give them to you? Are you obligated to do it?--Geysirhead (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OWN, does not it? @HighKing:--Geysirhead (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Geysirhead, its really not a smart idea to bludgeon and bully editors on their own Talk pages because they've !voted to Delete an article at [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome (2nd_nomination)| an AfD]] which you've got an interest in keeping. I also note you are currently edit-warring at the article itself - also not smart. My advice to you is to reel your neck back in and stop posting here. If you've anything to say, say it at the AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for analysing my behavior! I see a huge cluster of editors, who only have green talk contributions and red page contributions. They delete, talk, don't WP:LISTEN and the most brazen copy-paste talk page content. Copy-pasting deletion arguments instead of reading sources, learning something new ... This is pathetic. Good buy!--Geysirhead (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Its always nice to interact with relatively new editors who need help understanding our policies and guidelines but I'd suggest you keep an eye our for malignant psychological projection though. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)