Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangonet

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Sangonet}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Sangonet}})

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to verify its notability and impact, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BEFORE - I see several good sources, including news stories, online. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• KeepThere is a structural problem here; organisations from the "Third World" and the Global South tend to be less visible than their counterparts in the more affluent parts of the world. This does not mean they are less relevant or doing less important work; it just means that the media is not as developed in those parts of the world. Hence the reflection doesn't take place as easily. Please address this structural issue which I have been attempting to long raise on the Wikipedia. We cannot dream of a product which is the "sum total of all human knowledge" when "knowledge" is defined in such narrow ways. PS: I have created this page, and pages like this, for precisely this reason. Fredericknoronha (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Not from me. I tried Bing News and there were no results at all. I tried Google News and the only thing that wasn't from the organization's own WWW site turned out to be a PR service that publishes press releases. I didn't look too hard at the books, but the first one was a disappointment. It looked promising, until I scrolled back to the top of the section and found that it was copied from the WWW site's own "about" page. The next book seemed to be sourced to every company's/organization's own WWW sites that it was discussing, too. A paper copy of a corporate autobiography is still a corporate autobiography. And it turns out that copying the corporate autobiography was exactly how this article began at Special:Permalink/17787890, too. (Current versions of that blurb can be found even today.) The added text in the current article comes from the software's description on SourceForge. The claim that the editor here wrote any of this appears to be false. Xe merely copied it. So it's no loss if we delete the Wikipedia copy of a corporate blurb that Wikipedia has been hosting for 20 years. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard nor a hosting service for yet more copies of blurbs in addition to the ones that the organization itself has spread around. Uncle G (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep not because of the comments by {{u|Fredericknoronha}}, which have no basis in policies or guidelines, but rather because a 2007 book called [https://books.google.com/books?id=B14YU9FePgIC&pg=PA6&dq=%22Sangonet%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj96Pip1IaMAxXLJEQIHY0jCuwQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sangonet%22%20-wikipedia&f=false Home Informatics and Telematics: ICT for the Next Billion] devotes significant coverage to Sangonet, as does a 2006 book called [https://books.google.com/books?id=qU29AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA264&dq=%22Sangonet%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj96Pip1IaMAxXLJEQIHY0jCuwQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sangonet%22%20-wikipedia&f=false Empowering Marginal Communities with Information Networking], as does a 2002 book called [https://books.google.com/books?id=tYDgAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Sangonet%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Sangonet%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj96Pip1IaMAxXLJEQIHY0jCuwQ6AF6BAgJEAM#%22Sangonet%22%20-wikipedia Rowing Upstream: Snapshots of Pioneers of the Information Age in Africa · Volume 1], as does a 2010 book called [https://books.google.com/books?id=NHKakBx1oiQC&pg=PA342&dq=%22Sangonet%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj96Pip1IaMAxXLJEQIHY0jCuwQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sangonet%22%20-wikipedia&f=false Information and Communication Technologies, Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework]. And there are other books but that is enough to show that the topic is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Alas, it isn't.

  I see that you too found the 2010 book that explicitly says that it copied the corporate biography, but you didn't spot it. It's the one with the very same corporate blurb straight-up copied here by Fredericknoronha in 2005, updated from 17 to 22 years because it was copied the year before the book came out, and with the about page URLs in the text. It says 26 years on the LinkedIn copy, and 30 and 33 on a couple of other copies elsewhere.

  Google hides that 2002 book from me. But a quick title search prompts a question: Is its author, perchance, Anriette Esterhuysen the former Executive Director of SANGONeT, and is it written in the first person singular and plural? If so, it is {{plainlink|1=https://arabinfomall.bibalex.org/En/OrgData.aspx?orgid=1113§ionid=3|2=more SANGONeT corporate autobiography}} in book form.

  The 2006 book chapter, if you scroll up to the chapter title, you will find comes from SANGONeT too. It's {{doi|10.4018/978-1-59140-699-0.ch010}} and the author affiliations are explicit.

  That leaves the 2 paragraph 6 sentence treatment in the 2010 book. "Only two paragraphs?" you might ask. Yes. The rest, from the next paragraph onwards until it starts talking about QUALCOMM, is all about the Human Sciences Research Council's PRODDER and then about Women'sNet, another Fredericknoronha article.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.