Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opay: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
R |
redirect |
||
Line 33:
* '''Keep''' Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggested[[User:Parwiz ahmadi|Parwiz ahmadi]] ([[User talk:Parwiz ahmadi|talk]]) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
[There used to be a {{tl|ORGCRIT assess table}} here, in case anyone was confused about the hanging sig and replies. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)]
<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying [[WP:SIRS]] incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Baidu_Baike here] on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the [https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ third you listed] by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The [https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ fourth] also does not show [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at [https://www.benjamindada.com/olu-akanmu-resigns-opay-nigeria-appoints-new-md/ least] [https://technext24.com/2023/07/31/olu-akanmu-resigns-as-opay-nigerias-ceo/ four] [https://techpoint.africa/2023/07/31/opay-ceo-steps-down/ other] [https://nairametrics.com/2023/07/31/opay-nigerias-ceo-olu-akanmu-resigns-amid-companys-5th-anniversary-celebration/ publications]. It would fall under [[WP:CHURNALISM]] as well. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
::Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. <s>The fact is that other website you cited are blogs.</s> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Line 103:
* '''Comment''': I have also removed the source assessment table. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::I am including a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opay&diff=prev&oldid=1230701341 link] so closers can review the source table as it would be good for them to see the evaluation. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 17:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
*Well, this has certainly turned into one of the AfDs of all time. I really don't see the point in asserting a topic meets GNG which {{!tq|supersedes NCORP}} when the 4 requirements are, to a word, identical: Significant, independent, reliable, secondary. I do not believe I can identify three souces meeting the basic, coverage-based criteria as applied to any subject. The analysis surrounding significant coverage seems to focus on whether a credible claim would indicate importance. For example, the central bank listing, the mention of winning an award, being approved to do business, among other things, are examples of claims that would avert an A7, but are {{em|not}} useful example of significant coverage, which requires that the topic of an article be addressed directly and in-detail. Similarly, having {{tq|deep historical records}} with coverage {{tq|all over the web}} does indicate potential for sources to exist, but are not {{em|actual sources}}, which is typically what is required at a deletion discussion. Pointing towards search engine results or random articles taken from those results is at best incredibly unhelpful, and at worst actively undermines to the case for retention.
:There aren't any that particularly stand out positively, but the article in ''The Africa Report'' (ISSN 1950-4810 accessible via [https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A793198314/STND?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-STND&xid=74217fba Gale]) is a one sentence statement from them, and a few other mentions acknowledging their existence. That is very far from "directly and in-detail". THe article in [https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ ''The Cable''] is clearly marked as an ad, an assetion that it meets any of the four criteria would be nonsense. The [https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ ''Daily News Egypt''] is almost certainly also a press release. And sure, in any article article, it's fine to have sources that don't meet all of the criteria for establishing notability. Bringing {{em|that}} up at AfD, and not the sources that actually do establish notability, is only going to convince people that those sources don't exist. Of the best three sources provided by Vanderwaalforces, the article from ''Nairametrics'' covering the [https://nairametrics.com/2018/05/24/opera-mini-maker-opera-software-may-acquire-telnets-paycom/ acquisition] mentions the fintech subsidary in approximatly two sentences, neither of which are secondary; the [https://nairametrics.com/2022/10/04/review-opay-is-a-great-app-but-needs-improvement-with-customer-service/ app review] is the guy selecting a bunch of reviews from the google play store... I suppose it might be considered "secondary" on a technicality, but the suggestion that it meets SIGCOV seems dubious, even if we are accepting inherited notability, which is not typical practice. I'm willing to accept the ''Business Day'' article as borderline, even though ORGIND would normally suggest that it be excluded, but that's still only one source, not the usual three we look for. I don't see a reasonable justification for this not to be a '''redirect''' to the founder [[Zhou Yahui]] or another appropriate page. If necessary, some content might be {{em|selectively}} merged, but I don't believe we have what it takes for a standalone article. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||