Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cactus Communications (2nd nomination)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cactus Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage consists of non-independent sources (e.g. interview-based articles) and WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - interviews are not always non-independent and a source being in interview format does not make it an unreliable source, in fact interviews are common journalistic practice and have been since the invention of the printing press. That the sources currently in the article might need some expanding upon is not a reason for deletion, and a quick Google search shows there are plenty of potential sources that haven't yet made it into the article. Beyond coverage, the company's work is cited in a range of well-regarded publications and multiple members of the company's corporate and scientific leadership teams are cited as experts and have received coverage in their own right. St★lwart111 04:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically in relation to NCORP, that's not accurate (other guidelines may be difference). Interviews are always non-independent because it is the company (or somebody affiliated with the company) providing the information - *but* if, for example, the article doesn't rely entirely on the interview content and the journalist/author provides their own opinion/analysis/etc then the article *may* meet the criteria. HighKing++ 12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's is nothing to support the claim that, "Interviews are always non-independent". That simply isn't how interviews work. Interviews are a normal part of journalistic practice. The suggestion that the format somehow changes only in relation to reporting on corporations, and then so significantly that they should be considered in a completely different way, is illogical. The mental gymnastics required to justify that position is proof enough that WP:NCORP is either wrong, or its being applied incorrectly. St★lwart111 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- If an executive or affiliated person is being interviewed and provides information about the company, that is always non-independent. Not just from an NCORP POV, but it is a Primary source. There's no mental gymnastics required for this view. Your position - that we don't require a third party to provide in-depth "Independent Content" - is not supported by NCORP. You have your own opinion - fine - take it to NCORP and argue to change the guidelines. HighKing++ 12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's is nothing to support the claim that, "Interviews are always non-independent". That simply isn't how interviews work. Interviews are a normal part of journalistic practice. The suggestion that the format somehow changes only in relation to reporting on corporations, and then so significantly that they should be considered in a completely different way, is illogical. The mental gymnastics required to justify that position is proof enough that WP:NCORP is either wrong, or its being applied incorrectly. St★lwart111 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically in relation to NCORP, that's not accurate (other guidelines may be difference). Interviews are always non-independent because it is the company (or somebody affiliated with the company) providing the information - *but* if, for example, the article doesn't rely entirely on the interview content and the journalist/author provides their own opinion/analysis/etc then the article *may* meet the criteria. HighKing++ 12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete What we are looking at is WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited so scientists and leaders getting covered won't directly translate to company's notability. I know that debating WP:CORPDEPTH is painful enough already. To debate that it does pass WP:CORPDEPTH, best would be provide verbatim examples from the sources. And then we can look if the source is also independent and reliable to count it as one of WP:THREE. No prejudices against folks voting keep since there can be multiple view points to it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Inheritance has nothing to do with it; the company's work is considered significant enough (and those responsible for it, expert enough) that it is cited by others. In much the same way as researchers and academics are cited for their contributions. Coverage like this includes quotes from an executive (like any other news article would) while still giving significant coverage to the company itself. This article suggests the author spoke to the CEO of Cactus but he is barely quoted (if at all?) and the article provides detailed coverage of the company while interspersed with citations of other supporting research. This article is perhaps less useful as it quotes someone who worked at Cactus, but the person who wrote it is still independent and the source is still reliable. And these are in addition to the routine corporate announcements and whatever might be available that hasn't been included in the article yet. St★lwart111 04:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The livemint article is a standard "profile" or puff-piece article where all of the information is provided by the company. Typically has a standard format too - history, problem, aha moment, early success, funding, current description/offering/fantabulous prospects, glowing future. Oh and a photo of the founders. So it might contain significant in-depth information but it still fails WP:ORGIND because it has no "Independent Content". The OpenAccessGovernment article does more than "suggest" the author spoke to the CEO, the main headline suggests he wrote the article. Which explains the sentence "Building on our reputation as one of The Best Remote Companies in 2020, CACTUS recently introduced Amber". So that also fails WP:ORGIND. And finally the Nature article is a mention-in-passing which provides zero in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Inheritance has nothing to do with it; the company's work is considered significant enough (and those responsible for it, expert enough) that it is cited by others. In much the same way as researchers and academics are cited for their contributions. Coverage like this includes quotes from an executive (like any other news article would) while still giving significant coverage to the company itself. This article suggests the author spoke to the CEO of Cactus but he is barely quoted (if at all?) and the article provides detailed coverage of the company while interspersed with citations of other supporting research. This article is perhaps less useful as it quotes someone who worked at Cactus, but the person who wrote it is still independent and the source is still reliable. And these are in addition to the routine corporate announcements and whatever might be available that hasn't been included in the article yet. St★lwart111 04:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "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. That means, nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article or mentioned in this AfD meet the criteria. They are either puff pieces or articles that rely entirely on information provided by the company or affiliated people. All of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Every article ever written for a newspaper that quotes a source more familiar with the subject than the journalist is written the same way; pick any New York Times or Washington Post article. What you're suggesting is that if the subject of a newspaper article is a company, rather than an individual or event, then journalistic practice has gone out the window and somehow the journalist in question is a paid corporate shill because - like any other article they write - they have asked the subject of the article for information or a quote. That's just plain nonsensical. St★lwart111 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, yes. NCORP applies a stricter application of the requirement for multiple unconnected sources providing in-depth "Independent Content". Other guidelines, such as WP:BIO for example, take a less strict approach. If the newspaper article relies entirely on the information provided by the company or connected individuals without providing their own opinion/analysis/etc then what you've got is information from a PRIMARY source. If you've an issue with NCORP and its application, take it to the NCORP Talk page. If your argument that it is all "nonsensical" holds up, great. As I've said to you on multiple occasions in the past, I don't care what's in the guidelines, I'll help to implement whatever is in there. HighKing++ 12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Every article ever written for a newspaper that quotes a source more familiar with the subject than the journalist is written the same way; pick any New York Times or Washington Post article. What you're suggesting is that if the subject of a newspaper article is a company, rather than an individual or event, then journalistic practice has gone out the window and somehow the journalist in question is a paid corporate shill because - like any other article they write - they have asked the subject of the article for information or a quote. That's just plain nonsensical. St★lwart111 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and HighKing's observations. -Hatchens (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as noted above. Those interviews might show that the executives or the individuals people could be notable, but the company itself doesn't inherit notability from its executives saying things about it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.