Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorae

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorae[edit]

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

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

Software company that does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This company contains significant mention from Yahoo Finance, other than that it doesn't contain any other reliable and significant sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Contains no reliable, independent, or significant sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P,TO 19104: That's a press release reprint ("PR newswire"). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to disagree. I can only see one mention from Yahoo Finance. Per example, The World Economic Forum and Volkswagen are significant, independent and reliable sources and same can be said about the blogs that reference their work related to cobalt in Africa. Furthermore this article references a growing company and we can find related sources in other languages, Dorae as an approved article in Portuguese wikipedia.Bruno Sequito (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruno Sequito: Volkswagen is a car manufacturer, why would a mention from them automatically means notability? They would list any of their partners, they have financial incentives to do that. It is not of interest to the general public, and it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Do you think Wikipedia should have an article for every partner Volkswagen ever had? Why is Dorae such a notable partner? It is not even the exclusive subject of that news story of Volkswagen. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruno Sequito: Which sources are reputable? FastCompany? Their whole business is to do sensationalistic articles of 'upcoming' companies, and they won't ever mention 99% of them again! Tell me about your favorite source, and I'll tell you how it isn't proper. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Claiming sources are notable does not make them so. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, By looking at the references we can see that their notability is not a one-time thing, and furthermore it seems like they were involved in notable events, for example, the World Economic Forum and a Hackathon sponsored by Volkswagen. About their references: Global Trade Review (GTR) is a respected news source and event organiser for global trade and supply chain finance industries and therefore strong in the company related business. FinSMEs is widely used as a reference in many wikipedia articles. RyanBahn (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RyanBahn: GTR is respected by whom? It is not enough to simply assert it. It is pay-to-publish just like FinSMEs. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ysangkok: So, are you going to say we can't use any magazines or newspapers? 100% of them need advertising or some kind of sponsorship to survive, they have owners with their own interests, we could say none are independent. Bruno Sequito (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodpeek: why do you think FinSMEs is a reputable source? It is a self-admitted blog, which is even pay-to-publish! See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. Do you disagree with any of this? Look how many VC deals they list! Do you think each of these blurbs warrant Wikipedia articles? --Ysangkok (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruno Sequito: you can only vote once, please strike the keep here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1: it is misleading to use the word "vote", since it is WP:NOTAVOTE. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) I understand your concern but there is nothing fishy about a reference to a software company that has several notable references. Is there any reference in particular you want to discuss? Also I do not know who is RyanBahn.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) There are references from the World Economic Forum (Dorae is a technology pioneer of WEF) and allAfrica (Largest distributor of African news and information worldwide). These two references are considered independent and notable. There are also references from several other sources.
  • Delete There appears to have been some sort of canvassing going on in this AFD, but it's pretty obvious that none of these sources show significant coverage of this topic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: All that is said in the article is verified by the references. Bruno Sequito (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One can google and see there is significant coverage of this topic including from AllAfrica. The fact this company has a lot of coverage from African sources does not remove credibility. It is ok to have African sources in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.67.222 (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Congo-Kinshasa: Congo Women Miners to Become Peace Ambassadors? That article simply mentions Dorae out of the blue, not explaining anything about how it relates to the story. How is an article like that supposed to be trusted? Or are you talking about this two paragraph "article": Congo-Kinshasa: Firms Invest in Technology to Track DRC Minerals? They wrote "conflit-hit". Not a sign of good journalism. Nobody asserted that African sources are not permitted, but AllAfrica doesn't look like well-researched, and it even looks like it is pay-to-publish. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AllAfrica aggregates news from generally reliable sources (here, The EastAfrican). But neither of those articles is significant coverage of Dorae in any event. (BTW a full copy of that second reference is available here -- still not significant coverage in full form.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) it is not reasonable to say the largest and most important African news distributor is not well researched because they wrote “conflit-hit”. I find such sentence obnoxious if not racist. People do not write the same English in Nairobi, Edinburgh or Los Angeles. DailyMail is pay-to-publish. AllAfrica is not. Single reason this article is being nominated for deletion is the fact most part of the news come from the work they do in AFRICA and you find such references not credible. Incredibly sad.
  • LOL. The reason I nominated this article for deletion is that, after finding Torre de Moncorvo mines and thinking it was a nice little article so I should check for other drafts by the same author, I discovered the opposite, that there was an author with apparent undisclosed COI issues who was drafting a number of junk articles, one of which (Dorae) slipped through the cracks. I have written/improved more articles about underrepresented portions of the world (including Africa) than the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. A few examples off the top of my head include Agriculture in Senegal, Agriculture in Benin, Markets in Benin, Foreign trade of Benin, Certificate of occupancy (land tenure), and Malaria in Benin. So stop with the nonsense. I'll shed some crocodile tears for you because your client's article (or an article about your company?) is getting deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) all your references (I kid you not) about “underrepresented portions of the world (including Africa)” are from American or first world sources. You write about Senegal and Benin and you cannot find one single African source. I guess because nothing is credible in Africa. We need to read what a “LA big law firm lawyer” writes about Africa to know what is going on there. If there is one article about a company that is known in Africa and is created by an African individual then such article must be deleted (because the references are mainly from African sources). This company is even a WEF partner because the work they do in Africa but still LA times does not speak about it.
  • FYI, I defended the reliability of the AllAfrica sources above. The problem is that the discussion of Dorae in those sources is very cursory. If you have African sources discussing Dorae in more depth, please add them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) I was not the writer of this article. It happens I know the company because of the work they are doing in Republic Democratic of Congo and checked the Wikipedia after they were announced the WEF technology partner for supply chain. I literally just added a link to IDG Connect that speaks about the work Dorae did for the mining of cobalt in Democratic Republic of Congo. And thanks for speaking with me in a polite and nice way. Again, the work they are doing in certain countries in Africa is very substantial and is very well documented in local sources and by the WEF.
  • Comment, Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) and Ysangkok (talk · contribs) I am an Angolan post doctorate researcher. I have no clients and I own no company. I am a first time editor of Wikipedia and I have an interest in global trade in general (and yes, GTR is the most relevant publication there is about global trade) and Africa in particular. Your comments about GTR and AllAfrica shows nothing more than a lack of respect for people that live and work in Africa (rather than write about what is going on in Africa). I am very disappointed with Wikipedia and I see no reason to delete Dorae article. Dorae should stay. I also think people should be treated with respect even when they disagree.
  • Keep The World Economic Forum is a good source. And I am not really following the plot here about Africa. They have press there too, right? That counts same as anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsterlives38 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dorae&oldid=971425818"