Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
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. While the "vote count" here is roughly evenly divided, there is a policy based issue when there are complaints about the article being promotional in nature and being sourced by press releases. In particular WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION apply. That Wikipedia shall not be used as promotion for a company is a crucial to Wikipedia's reputation. I have not reviewed all 50 sources in the article, but looking at the sources discussed in this discussion, the issue that they are based on company releases has not been adequately adressed.

For example, looking at three of the sources listed by Nanpofira:

  • [1] is clearly promotional in nature, containing lines such as "Harnessing AI, CropIn provided technical support to conduct reliable, accurate, and large scale CCE within a short harvesting window and limited manpower."
  • [2] only mentions Cropin once, and that is a promotional sentence "...SmartRisk and CropIn also equip farmers with accessible intelligence in connection with crop cycle planning and yield maximization."
  • [3] contains the clearly promotional "CropIn has been able to revolutionise farming by incorporating technology into daily field operation."

As such, the "delete" side have made a clear and convincing argument that the article, as it stands, is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's prohibition against advertising. In theory, an overly promotional tone can be resolved by editorial processes such as stubbing the article and rebuilding based on more neutral sourcing. However, the lack of independent sourcing providded here also creates an unresolved notability issue.

For this reason, I find that the clear policy based issues brought up by the "delete" side remain unrefuted and do indeed mandate deletion in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cropin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, you are correct that WP:COMPANY is the appropriate guideline but I don't see how any of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. NCORP has two important sections - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ORGIND defines "Independent content" and say in order to count towards establishing notability, references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Once you remove that information, whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. Lets look at your references and when I say the article is "based" on an announcement or infomation provided by the company, it means that there is nothing I can find in the article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company:
Not a single reference contains any "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) which meets CORPDEPTH. Can you point to any reference and paragraph which you believe meet ORGIND crieria? HighKing++ 19:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing, thanks for your detailed analysis. You are very thorough I must admit, but your entire analysis is based on a subjective assumption which is false and thus the entire analysis is flawed. To illustrate, let me repeat what ORGIND says about "Independent content"; it demands references in order to be counted 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. it also states the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
Now, if you see, for the content or announcement which are affiliated to the primary entity, which is Cropin here, all the credible media mention such content as press release or sponsored post or something similar. In those cases, all the media houses make a very clear disclaimer that such content do come directly from the entity so they don't take any of its responsibility. The case is entirely different when any news is published under a byline of an independent journalist. Whenever any news is published with byline of a journalists or editor of credible media, they take responsibility of what they are saying, which means it satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I accept your opinion , then no matter what references are there, any entity can always be said as non-notable just because the information published are 'based on announcement'. Now, how can people know something about a company if the company doesn't provide the information? So, every news about any organization be it notable or not comes from the organization at its origin. The concentration should not be on 'based on announcement' because all the company or organizational info irrespective of the kind and nature of the organization happen to come from the respective company or organization. We need to see if the mediation between company information and published news is relaibly mediated or not, you may agree this is how the concept of primary and secondary sources are developed. The concentration rather should be on whether the published news are passing through reliable editorial oversight and in case of all major, respected media like The Hindu Business Lines, Financial Express, Live Mint, Economic Times whenever any news comes out under an independent author's byline, the media house takes the responsibility of the content, which means they are implicitly agreeing that they verify the information, fact checking everything and of course adding independent opinion since writing independently is the fundamental requirement of journalism. Khemotaj (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hi Khemotaj, that is not correct. The ORGIND section lists a series of what is called "Dependent Coverage" which among other things includes any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources. If a company announces that they're laying off 100 people and it is reported by a journalist that the company is making 100 people redundant, that is not "Independent Content" just because some words were changed. It is not "original and independent", it is regurgitating a company announcement (or quotes or interviews etc). There is no original analysis/investigation/etc carried out by the journalist (which must be *clearly attributable* to a source that is not unaffiliated with the company). The journalist/editor/etc takes responsibility for what is being written only in so far as ensuring that the text accurately reflects the announcement and doesn't report the information incorrectly by (for example) saying the company is laying off 1,000 people when the announcement said 100 people. That is what reliable editorial oversight means in that context. There are examples of "Independent Content" involving company announcements where, for example, the journalist might provide an in-depth opinion on the impact the news might have on the company or their competitors or the industry. We see this when analysts report on companies for example. Finally, you should be aware of the practice of paying for positive news in Indian publications. HighKing++ 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hi HighKing, thanks again for your response. My argumentations were primarily to dispute your claim that any references "based on" organizational announcements are not independent. Let me extend the argument further and concentrate on the set of references of this article. Firstly, there is a different between based on and entirely based on; so I think very few of the references can be actually accused of Dependent Coverage here in this case. Just at per the ORGIND, if you see this reference from The Hindu Business Lines, is an excellent comparative analysis of agro-tech startups which covers Cropin significantly. Same is true for this article from Forbes India, that discuses a comparative study of competing agro-tech firms from a neutral perspective. I am not sure why this article seemed to be a puff profile to you (did you read the article?). The article is an excellent insightful story on the agro-tech landscape of India and its challenges with the current supply chain mechanism. Also, you will find how Cropin took a very crucial role in digitizing the gigantic project Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana of Governmental of India from this article. Along with these, there are lot more references I can cite which satisfy ORGIND very well. I think you will surely find those if you dig a little more and read the references thoroughly.
Regarding your interpretation about how journalists or media houses declare their responsibilities about the content they produce (only to correspond properly to what they receive from any organization), I must say such conditional interpretation does not hold any logical ground as there are editorial oversights just to ensure that they can confidently take the responsibility of the content fully and wholly. They take the responsibility of the content that they produce under staff editor's byline wholly without any such condition. Lastly, Paid news in India is possibly a real issue apart from the fact that such corrupt practice is known to exist beyond any national horizon [4] [5], but none claimed it to be a widespread practice so I think its a minority phenomenon and it will not be right to try to extend this to generality more importantly when we lack any evidence that such practices affected the concerned references that we are discussing here. Khemotaj (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I think we're nearing the end of this discussion. I disagree with what you are saying and for me, your interpretation of what is required falls well short of the reality. For example, this reference from The Hindu Business Lines you say meets NCORP. It doesn't. It has a standard description of the company, mentions some recent company expansion activity and has a quote from the CEO and information provided by the CEO. Once you take away the ORGIND material (and arguably, that just about everything describing the company), the remainder is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. There is certainly no "comparative analysis" as you claim. Nor is this coverage "significant" in any way. This Forbes India reference profiles a number of companies including Cropin but again, the article relies entirely on information/quotes from the company and has no "Independent Content". This next [Forbes India reference consists of a total of four sentences which are directly linked to Cropin (two of which are credited to the CEO), this is not WP:CORPDEPTH material. Also, Ritu Verma is an investor and therefore is not an unaffiliated source. Perhaps describing it as a "puff profile" is harsh but Cropin themselves describe it as a highlighted mention, nothing more. I cannot understand why you've pointed to the India AI reference seeing as the Government of India is a partner on this project and therefore not unaffiliated, this fails ORGIND. So no, you are merely demonstrating that you don't understand NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet all the criteria (for notability) - both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time - and none of those references even come close.
Finally, your ideas about newspapers taking responsibility for the content "fully and wholly" is nonsense. In much the same way that a Wikipedia editor takes some responsibility for ensuring that the content in an article is verifiable and referenced correctly, a publisher will only stand over the verifiable accuracy of content, not the veracity of the actual content. You are simply wikilawyering to impose your interpretation that everything a journalist write which isn't a quote therefore meets ORGIND's criteria for "Independent Content" that is clearly from a source unaffiliated with the topic company. That is nonsense and the context of the articles shows it to be so. As I said, there's little point in continuing this discussion, I believe we both understand each other's point of view and have different opinions on interpretation. HighKing++ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable organization having a good amount of activities, works etc. which are covered extensively by credible sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP comfortably. Cirton (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kirtos67 can you provide a link to any reference that meets NCORP? What I've seen so far fails ORGIND, all based on company announcements/interviews, perhaps I've missed something. Thank you. HighKing++ 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per rationale provided by Khemotaj, passes notability criteria WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND and per guideline WP:THREE. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read the sources Khemotaj cites in a comment above as ORGIND-worthy. They touch different topics, but when it comes to the company, everything they say is directly from the company and the articles are very clear about it. The assertion that those articles pass ORGIND in any manner is plainly wrong. While I haven't gone through every source listed in the article, I agree with the HighKing's assessment above of the handful and do not see any reference that is WP:SIRS. Hemantha (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been updated considerably by me. I have added new references and have added a section that refers to books and journals that discuss about Cropin. There are many books and journals that have extensively discussed Cropin's business model to evaluate different metrics in agro-tech farming in India. I have added only a few to illustrate the point. Khemotaj (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I disagree that the article has been "updated considerably" with some very minor changes and two new references (which adds to the WP:REFBOMB problem as it brings the total of references (mostly announcements and PR) to 53. There's a new "Further readings" section which lists some publications but none have been linked nor have been listed with IBAN or any other identifier. For example, the paper "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" doesn't even mention the topic company. The book "Cyber Technological Paradigms and Threat Landscape in India" has a single mention of the company (name) on page 86 in a list of other "AI-related start-ups". The Unleash the Neurons: Design Thinking book is another mention in passing with a standard description. HighKing++ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks The above Response made by HighKing has multiple false claims. Firstly, "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" does indeed discuss cropin in page 19 (available in Google Books). Secondly, majority of the books in further reading section has ISBN which is updated now. I have added a set of further books which cover the organization. In fact the book "Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good" published by Springer has a dedicated chapter on Cropin (Chapter 15, page 289). The Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing has a detailed case study on Cropin (in Chapter 7). Not sure what else can be required for to establish ORGIND. Khemotaj (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to me a prominent entity with numerous consequential collaborations with Government of India and its states as mentioned in [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also, there are a good number of prominent media coverage so passes WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Nanpofira (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, and highly promotional. The references are essentially advertisements or press releases--the wikipedia article in its surrent form reads also like a press release, and given the lack of independence of the references, there doesn't seem too be the possibility of writing something better. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cropin

Leave a Reply