- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Dimagi
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dimagi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. WP:MILL. Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep Talk 01:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- As the original author of the article and a relative expert on the CAP theorem, I have no real opinion on the deletion of this article at this time.-- Michael White T· C 18:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SIGCOV- just a cursory look at the sources, and they look ok. Bearian ( talk) 23:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Lets look at the sources one by one.
- * https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/26/technology/mobile_health.fortune/ We're tackling problems that make economic sense and are something we care about and think we could make a big difference in," said CEO Jonathan Jackson Fails WP:ORGIND.
- * Dead Link Dead link.
- * Vikram Sheel Kumar: Software Design Kumar hopes that within five years Dimagi will have designed more open-source software that, like the Zambia application, can be adapted for use worldwide. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- * Company site
- * [1] Dead link. An event listing.
- * [2] Dead link
- * [3] Malware page
- * [4] Dead link
- * [5] Genuine ref.
- * Optimizing Network Connectivity for Mobile Health Technologies in sub-Saharan Africa A paper written by a Dimagi employee. Doesn't establish notability.
I don't think there is sufficient references to support it. Their app works in 80 countries, so there must be some coverage. It think if it is found found notable, it should draftified until it is improved. scope_creep Talk 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify per scope creep. BD2412 T 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some discussion now of draftification, so giving this a third relist to see if a consensus can be formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Some discussion now of draftification, so giving this a third relist to see if a consensus can be formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Please see this 36-page paper by the World Bank, which could literally be used to cover all of this article in references. The paper contains 2 pages of its own references. As far as I am concerned, this resource by itself covers all concerns. Having said that, there are 980 hits when searching Google Scholar, and a number of those lead to citations referencing the subject in scholarly journals.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Concertmusic, the significant coverage is out there (even if its not in the article) based on a search of Google Scholar. I don't personally think the article is in that bad of shape such that it needs to be moved to draft, but I also wouldn't oppose that. Regardless, I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. per Concertmusic Rajuiu ( talk) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment That is a good reference, no doubt and if there was three of them I would be closing the nomination myself, but at the moment one reference is insufficient. scope_creep Talk 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Adding references: WHO, Commcare, PlusCare in Journal of Adolescent Health, and NIH. There are a handful of additional articles on the National Institute of Health that make small references especially to CommCare, which seems to be the claim to fame for Dimagi - but the two (CommCare and Dimagi) are always mentioned hand-in hand.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @
Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn
scope_creep
Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref.
scope_creep
Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll take a look in the next 1-2 days to add the sources where appropriate. Thank you!-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref.
scope_creep
Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @
Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn
scope_creep
Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Dimagi
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dimagi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. WP:MILL. Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep Talk 01:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- As the original author of the article and a relative expert on the CAP theorem, I have no real opinion on the deletion of this article at this time.-- Michael White T· C 18:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SIGCOV- just a cursory look at the sources, and they look ok. Bearian ( talk) 23:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Lets look at the sources one by one.
- * https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/26/technology/mobile_health.fortune/ We're tackling problems that make economic sense and are something we care about and think we could make a big difference in," said CEO Jonathan Jackson Fails WP:ORGIND.
- * Dead Link Dead link.
- * Vikram Sheel Kumar: Software Design Kumar hopes that within five years Dimagi will have designed more open-source software that, like the Zambia application, can be adapted for use worldwide. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- * Company site
- * [1] Dead link. An event listing.
- * [2] Dead link
- * [3] Malware page
- * [4] Dead link
- * [5] Genuine ref.
- * Optimizing Network Connectivity for Mobile Health Technologies in sub-Saharan Africa A paper written by a Dimagi employee. Doesn't establish notability.
I don't think there is sufficient references to support it. Their app works in 80 countries, so there must be some coverage. It think if it is found found notable, it should draftified until it is improved. scope_creep Talk 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify per scope creep. BD2412 T 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some discussion now of draftification, so giving this a third relist to see if a consensus can be formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Some discussion now of draftification, so giving this a third relist to see if a consensus can be formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Please see this 36-page paper by the World Bank, which could literally be used to cover all of this article in references. The paper contains 2 pages of its own references. As far as I am concerned, this resource by itself covers all concerns. Having said that, there are 980 hits when searching Google Scholar, and a number of those lead to citations referencing the subject in scholarly journals.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Concertmusic, the significant coverage is out there (even if its not in the article) based on a search of Google Scholar. I don't personally think the article is in that bad of shape such that it needs to be moved to draft, but I also wouldn't oppose that. Regardless, I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. per Concertmusic Rajuiu ( talk) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment That is a good reference, no doubt and if there was three of them I would be closing the nomination myself, but at the moment one reference is insufficient. scope_creep Talk 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Adding references: WHO, Commcare, PlusCare in Journal of Adolescent Health, and NIH. There are a handful of additional articles on the National Institute of Health that make small references especially to CommCare, which seems to be the claim to fame for Dimagi - but the two (CommCare and Dimagi) are always mentioned hand-in hand.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @
Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn
scope_creep
Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref.
scope_creep
Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll take a look in the next 1-2 days to add the sources where appropriate. Thank you!-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref.
scope_creep
Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @
Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn
scope_creep
Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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.