268:- 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.
526:. 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
476:
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
545:
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
285:
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
327:
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
567:
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
458:
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.
546:
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.
444:
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
568:
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.
305:
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
214:
481:
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
82:
613:, 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. —
453:
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.
77:
563:
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
208:
175:
367:
347:
514:
Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
387:
328:
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.
450:
122:
107:
422:, 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
148:
143:
152:
524:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
414:. Notability is not inherited so scientists and leaders getting covered won't directly translate to company's notability. I know that debating
301:. That simply isn't how interviews work. Interviews are a normal part of journalistic practice. The suggestion that the format somehow changes
135:
446:
622:
601:
574:
558:
536:
500:
471:
435:
399:
379:
359:
334:
322:
292:
280:
259:
62:
449:
includes quotes from an executive (like any other news article would) while still giving significant coverage to the company itself.
229:
196:
60:
102:
95:
17:
490:. And finally the Nature article is a mention-in-passing which provides zero in-depth information on the company and fails
190:
116:
112:
286:
content and the journalist/author provides their own opinion/analysis/etc then the article *may* meet the criteria.
431:
186:
639:
40:
139:
486:
reputation as one of The Best Remote
Companies in 2020, CACTUS recently introduced Amber". So that also fails
236:
131:
68:
635:
427:
36:
618:
395:
375:
355:
254:
58:
610:
515:
491:
419:
415:
411:
222:
202:
597:
250:
91:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
634:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
548:
519:
487:
478:
461:
312:
270:
614:
527:
423:
391:
371:
351:
307:
246:
53:
522:. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include
426:. No prejudices against folks voting keep since there can be multiple view points to it.
477:
the founders. So it might contain significant in-depth information but it still fails
593:
589:
569:
564:
531:
495:
455:
329:
287:
249:- coverage consists of non-independent sources (e.g. interview-based articles) and
169:
630:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
83:
418:
is painful enough already. To debate that it does pass
165:
161:
157:
221:
310:is either wrong, or its being applied incorrectly.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
642:). No further edits should be made to this page.
386:Note: This discussion has been included in the
366:Note: This discussion has been included in the
346:Note: This discussion has been included in the
368:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
297:There's is nothing to support the claim that,
235:
8:
348:list of Science-related deletion discussions
123:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
78:Articles for deletion/Cactus Communications
388:list of India-related deletion discussions
385:
365:
345:
518:and (this bit is important!) containing
299:"Interviews are always non-independent"
75:
516:in-depth information *on the company*
7:
24:
108:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
623:00:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
602:06:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
575:12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
559:11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
537:12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
501:12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
472:04:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
436:01:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
400:04:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
380:04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
360:04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
335:12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
323:11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
293:12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
281:04:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
260:03:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
63:00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
98:(AfD)? Read these primers!
659:
410:What we are looking at is
632:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
74:AfDs for this article:
245:Company does not meet
520:"Independent Content"
132:Cactus Communications
96:Articles for deletion
69:Cactus Communications
592:'s observations. -
402:
382:
362:
113:Guide to deletion
103:How to contribute
650:
555:
553:
468:
466:
428:Nomadicghumakkad
319:
317:
277:
275:
240:
239:
225:
173:
155:
93:
34:
658:
657:
653:
652:
651:
649:
648:
647:
646:
640:deletion review
588:as per nom and
551:
549:
464:
462:
315:
313:
273:
271:
256:MrsSnoozyTurtle
182:
146:
130:
127:
90:
87:
72:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
656:
654:
645:
644:
626:
625:
604:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
540:
539:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
439:
438:
404:
403:
383:
363:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
243:
242:
179:
126:
125:
120:
110:
105:
88:
86:
85:
80:
73:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
655:
643:
641:
637:
633:
628:
627:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:. This fails
608:
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
583:
576:
573:
572:
566:
562:
561:
560:
557:
556:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
534:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
502:
499:
498:
493:
489:
485:
480:
475:
474:
473:
470:
469:
457:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
344:
336:
333:
332:
326:
325:
324:
321:
320:
309:
304:
300:
296:
295:
294:
291:
290:
284:
283:
282:
279:
278:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
257:
252:
248:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:Find sources:
180:
177:
171:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
124:
121:
118:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
100:
99:
97:
92:
84:
81:
79:
76:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
59:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
631:
629:
611:WP:CORPDEPTH
606:
585:
570:
547:
532:
523:
511:
496:
492:WP:CORPDEPTH
483:
460:
456:This article
451:This article
420:WP:CORPDEPTH
416:WP:CORPDEPTH
412:WP:CORPDEPTH
407:
330:
311:
302:
298:
288:
269:
265:
255:
244:
232:
226:
218:
211:
205:
199:
193:
183:
89:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
209:free images
615:Mikehawk10
392:Lightburst
372:Lightburst
352:Lightburst
253:mentions.
251:WP:PASSING
55:Ritchie333
636:talk page
488:WP:ORGIND
479:WP:ORGIND
37:talk page
638:or in a
594:Hatchens
590:HighKing
571:HighKing
533:HighKing
528:WP:NCORP
497:HighKing
424:WP:THREE
331:HighKing
308:WP:NCORP
289:HighKing
247:WP:NCORP
176:View log
117:glossary
39:or in a
215:WP refs
203:scholar
149:protect
144:history
94:New to
607:Delete
586:Delete
565:WP:BIO
512:Delete
408:Delete
187:Google
153:delete
50:delete
554:lwart
467:lwart
318:lwart
276:lwart
230:JSTOR
191:books
170:views
162:watch
158:links
16:<
619:talk
598:talk
447:this
432:talk
396:talk
376:talk
356:talk
303:only
266:Keep
223:FENS
197:news
166:logs
140:talk
136:edit
484:our
237:TWL
174:– (
621:)
600:)
550:St
530:.
494:.
463:St
434:)
398:)
390:.
378:)
370:.
358:)
350:.
314:St
272:St
217:)
168:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
52:.
617:(
596:(
552:★
465:★
430:(
394:(
374:(
354:(
316:★
274:★
241:)
233:·
227:·
219:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
194:·
189:(
181:(
178:)
172:)
134:(
119:)
115:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.