This is an archive of past discussions about User:HighKing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Bit8 deletion
Hi HighKing - first of all thanks for your time. I am not sure if I replied in the correct section to your comments about Bit8 notability and since you had mentioned that you may change your mind I am providing some further info. I think that the Times of Malta article does pass WP:ORGIND especially as this particular newspaper is the standard reference for most news originating in Malta. The EGR awards are the best known awards in the online gaming industry - this is something I know from my own 10+ years working in this industry and also if you Google it there are more than 400 references from different companies to the awards - which DO indeed make them notable. Also there is an independent quote from both the Prime Minister of Malta and the CEO of the regulator about Bit8 - this is not something that would happen to a non-notable company. Do let me know if this changes your mind. If everyone seems to be making judgement on this without knowing the gaming industry itself (like I do for the past decade) I will merge the content into the Intralot article. I do not think this is the proper way as the company is independent. Thanks - your feedback will help me become a better contributor to Wikipedia.Maltalinks (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Maltalinks, I think you still misunderstand ORGIND. References should be from reliable sources and Times of Malta is indeed a reliable source. This type of source can be used as a citation within an article to support facts and information. The standard for references used to establish notability has *additional* criteria in that the article contents must be *intellectually independent*. Also, for an article to meet the criteria, there must be two such references from different sources. Based on the question of whether or not the ToM articles are intellectually independent and provide in-depth information on the company - they do not. HighKing++ 09:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying HighKing - so basically something like a bio/overview of the company would be the best reference sources? Obviously not from their own PR but from an independent coverage. Can I ask you a question - for example, would then the article for Sirplay not be notable and should be deleted? I really do appreciate your feedback.Maltalinks (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Any* article that is *intellectually independent* may help to establish notability. A bio/analysis/opinion (however expressed) on the *company* is ideal. The more articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability, the better. In relation to Sirplay, take a read of WP:OSE. HighKing++ 00:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Maltalinks, just bear in mind that first and foremost, the reference must be *intellectually independent*. There are a number of websites that print company profiles (such as those in Bloomberg or Forbes) which merely repeat information from the company filings/website - these are considered to be PRIMARY sources and fail to establish notability. In general, most articles on companies and organizations are either based on company announcements (New version! New Partner! New Executive Joins! New Business Win! etc) or interviews with company execs (dressed up as a profile) or awards (unless its a Nobel Prize or something equally HUUGE, generally doesn't establish notability). I find that *good* references are those found in books, or if a company has been covered by an analyst firm and the analysis is public, or references where the journalist provides *their own* opinion/analysis. It is actually pretty difficult for most companies to pass WP:NCORP - as it should be. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate website or a platform for advertising/marketing/promotion or a Yellow Pages. HighKing++ 17:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, HighKing. Thanks for the challenge over at the StuMagz AfD. I am still fine-tuning my assessments of marginal sources, and I pondered those two sources for a while. It will be interesting to read what others think. I'm certain there is COI at play but am trying to put that to one side and take the article entirely on its merits. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Venture capital companies deletions
Hi, I read something that suggests you might have been in the media relating to venture capital company deletions. Do you know about this yet? Care to comment for The Signpost? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bri, nope, didn't know about it. Out of curiosity, I looked up the article in the Telegraph. There was also a pic of a tweet from Eileen Burbidge which is "no longer available" but can still be seen here and was perhaps the event that led to the article being written seeing as how she pinged the author of the article in the tweet. I've also screengrabbed File:TweetFromEileenBurbidgeAndReplies.pngthe tweet here
Eileen, in turn, thanks a "Jason Trost" for giving her the "heads up". Jason says his page was deleted a month ago which was probably the article on his company. The article was created by User:Chopz who wrote to the AfD closer on July 13th (just after the article was published in the Telegraph) still arguing that the company was notable. To date though they haven't brought it back for a Deletion Review.
Back to the tweets from Eileen. Eileen namechecked my account in particular, stating "one specific editor: HighKing (perhaps s/he was turned down for funding by all the VCs affected, which includes @passioncapital)". Eh ... guess I nominated Passion Capital and therefore I'm the bad guy. I must have been looking at companies in the VC category because I also nominated Mangrove Capital Partners (a Luxembourg firm), Eden Ventures (a UK firm) and Hoxton Ventures (a UK Firm). And probably a whole lot more. Bias? Yes! Against poorly written articles that serve more as advertisements and to stroke the egos of founders and funders and do not meet the criteria for notability. Most aren't even close to meeting the criteria.
I also note that the Telegraph says "One person who works at a UK technology company which had its Wikipedia article deleted accused Wikipedia users of being biased against UK technology companies. “The political bias of the editors is astounding and especially the anti-UK sentiment” they said. “They want only delete UK firms while leaving any US firm with a page.” They wished to remain anonymous for fear of further action from Wikipedia users against them." I guess the irony was lost on the author and the "anonymous" source.
Inventing an "anti-UK bias" where none existed and sourced to an anonymous person who "works at a UK technology company" is lousy journalism from James Cook. I guess fake news has now infested the Telegraph. I'd love to work out the statistics but I'd guess that only between 5% - 10% of articles on companies/organizations survive AfD as the new WP:NCORP standards have been clarified and tightened up. There's no focus on UK companies. In fact I think I was accused a few months back of being anti-Indian because I nominated a bunch of Indian companies. But there's no country-specific focus at AfD. I am aware that sometimes selection of companies from the same category may appear at AfD - could be record companies, supermarkets, mining companies ... or VC firms, but that's just the way some editors look through various topics.
Overall ... what is obvious to anyone who spends time at AfD is the occasional sense of entitlement shown by a person connected with the company. Might be a CEO, might be a VC - but also usually connected with a startup. Now, I know, it's really tough and stressful running a startup. But Wikipedia isn't a platform for companies to abuse. It isn't a platform to assist on the road to success. It isn't a platform to stroke egos. It's not a platform for promotion. You and your company are not *entitled* to an article.
