Talk:Bigface

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bigface; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Evrik: I replied to HighKing on the talk page of the article. Genuinely wouldn't know how to solve the tagging, as imo the article already meets GNG. But I'll see what I can do. Soulbust (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Please look at the close paraphrasing flagged by earwig --evrik (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: Think I addressed the earwig concern but lmk if more needs to be done. Soulbust (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig flagged a quote, the rest looks fine. --evrik (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted but had to be pulled out of the Queue for now due to the article currently being nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigface. The hook is currently on hold per D5 (AfD hold). @Soulbust, Evrik, and Vaticidalprophet: Pinging you just to let you know the status and why. - Aoidh (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AFD has been closed as no consensus so the review can continue. With that said, the original reviewer has not edited in several weeks so a new one may need to take over. Courtesy ping to Aoidh who was the most recent commenter as well as to the nominator Soulbust. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw this on the way home and was gonna reply with something like "oh cool!", but lol nevermind I guess :\ Soulbust (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5: there doesn't seem to be any outstanding issues, so tick per evrik's previous review. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soulbust and Theleekycauldron: tags have been added to the article by HighKing, so I can't promote this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, marking for further work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'd like to just withdraw the nom. The first "relies excessively on references to primary sources" is pretty questionable. Lots of secondary sources present. Second one is just an extension of the disagreeing I'd have with HighKing from the AfD. I'm unsure how to patch the tag in question to alleviate the concern quickly enough for this to be promoted to the DYK section in a timely fashion. Just don't care to deal with this being dragged out even longer. It's been 9+ weeks of this getting held up in one way or another. Sorry just don't have the time for it really. Soulbust (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notability[edit]

This is a company/product therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "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. Looking at the references (all 25 of them) in the article, they are either based entirely on interviews with the founder, or are based on annoucements with no original/independent opinion/analysis/etc, or they are mentions-in-passing. Some don't even reference the company at all. None meet the criteria for establishing notability as there no in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company* and I am unable to locate anything that does. Perhaps someone else can find something? If not, this article should be deleted or merged to the article on the founder as per WP:ATD. HighKing++ 19:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that don't mention the company (such as this one) are used to reference/verify information that helps provide context (i.e. why Butler was in Orlando when he founded Bigface).
A deletion of this would be egregiously inappropriate, as if this isn't kept this should at the very least be redirected into the Jimmy Butler article. That being said though, there is a lot of information here that has a legitimate place in the encyclopedic context of Wikipedia, and merging this into the Jimmy Butler article would likely create an undue weight concern.
The Wall Street Journal gets into independent significant coverage before it delves into its interview portion with Butler. The SB Nation source goes back and forth between quoting Butler and providing its own discussion. This source talks about Bigface's activity at the Miami Grand Prix, does not interview Butler at all. Similarly, this source discusses the company's pop-up shop, without interviewing Butler.
It's pretty odd to assert that the sourcing present doesn't show notability for Bigface, as the sourcing pretty obviously goes into Bigface's activities and practices (i.e. CNBC mentioning how the company won a bid for El Salvador coffee).
I'll see if I can find any other sourcing on the company, but I'm pretty busy off of Wikipedia and I think the sourcing present already helps establish GNG, so I'm not going to exert myself too much in that regard. Soulbust (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soulbust, in effect there are two different types of sources. The first and most common are are sources that are used to validate date/information within an article (such as the ones that don't mention the company) and they standard for those is essentially WP:RS with few additional caveats. But the second are a small subset of the first that are used to establish notability and these need to meet additional criteria such as those in GNG/WP:NCORP. Lets look in detail at the ones you've mentioned against NCORP. I've pointed to specific sections of NCORP above including what is meant by "independent", especially in terms of "Independent Content".
  • Wall Street Journal article is based *entirely* on an interview with the founder. You say that the coverage is "independent" before it delves into its interview portion - but there's only 4 sentences there and that is neither significant not in-depth. It is also arguably information that was provided by the founder as how else would the journalist be able to say that he showers when he gets back to the house before mentioning Bigface? It is clear to me that this information is not from a source that is clearly unaffiliated from the company.
  • SB Nation reference has zero in-depth information about the *company*. (a brief nod to an announcement about a hookup with an Ice Cream company is not in-depth nor independent).
  • Boardroom TV reference also relies entirely on information provided by the company and one of their baristas (who is obviously affiliated with the company). It has no in-depth information about the company and the stats about their performance at the Grand Prix weekend are not significant, not in-depth about the company and invariably were provided by the company.
  • Ocean Drive is a short article (promo) about the pop-up collab with the Ice Cream company. It also has zero in-depth information about the *company*.
We need to see references whereby somebody provides "Independent Content" which in-depth and about the company. Articles which are essentially regurgitating company information and the founder's quotes is not independent and fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HighKing: I was going to evaluate this for its DYK entry, so I'm trying to be neutral. However, I do think this is notable. Perhaps @Soulbust: could find more or better sources, but I think you could remove the notability tag. --evrik (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • evrik, Soulbust, I've removed the tag so as not to interfere with the DYK process but genuinely, this topic doesn't meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've provided a detailed explanation above with reference to weighing specific references against various NCORP criteria. The only reason I didn't AfD this topic immediately was because a merge is more appropriate as per ATD. But given the "undue weight" argument above perhaps not. HighKing++ 19:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bigface&oldid=1206539252"