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. Sandstein 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOOGEE[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two problems with this article, notability and tone. The article reads like an advertisement for the company's products. Tone isn't a basis for deletion, but removing all of the promotional material would leave a stub. That leads to the second issue, notability. A Google search shows that the company exists and publicizes itself; we knew that. It doesn't find independent coverage. So between a tone problem and a notability problem, this page can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any independent WP:RS sources either. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing your feedback on my article. However, I genuinely believe the article should not be deleted. Firstly the article is on the requested Wikipedia article list. Secondly, the article is cited with multiple reliable sources that allow it too be verified. In line with the Wikipedia criteria on reliable sources, most sources cited are published news articles that have been written by a journalist and their names have been given. Furthermore, the date of the articles are all very current. A couple articles have been sourced from company outlets that are in fact competitors of DOOGEE such as Xiaomi, and hence would have no incentive to make statements that inflate the companies profile as it would hinder their performance.

Additionally, official websites have been used to verify information that is objective and has no significance in being falsified.

In regards to the article sounding like an advertisement, I have attempted to present a neutral overview of the company as well as a brief overview of the main series of products they produce and the regions in which they sell them (Specifically the "Products" and "Distributors" subheadings). In doing so, I aim for the article to cover a diverse range of relevant topics about DOOGEE to allow for a detailed article, as well as allow readers to have access to important aspects of the company without having to search the whole internet to find the information.

Due to the aforementioned, I motion that the article on DOOGEE, not be deleted. May others also please read through the article, and conduct a peer review, and then inform of any recommendations that would assist in improving the article so it may not be deleted Chris Tem123 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur the nom and other delete vote, and will recite WP:NCORP and more specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. DOOGEE may even lack a claim to significance, as it seems to be a run-of-the mill electronics company. Coverage cited in the article is not in-depth as required by NCORP, and said coverage is centered around brief articles announcing the launch or sale of a new phone. Sources attributable to the company itself are primary, and thus also not independent of the subject as required by NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; "the company exists and publicizes itself" sums this up. WP:TNT by an independent editor, if decent sources appear in the future. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Detailed product listings and distributors lists. No scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Thank you everyone for the feedback. Rather than deleting the article, could you all please suggest areas that could be improved so that the article can remain on wikipedia Chris Tem123 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2018 (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.