Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahabshiil


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 03:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dahabshiil

 * – ( View AfD View log )

OK, I'm bringing this here because I don't know what else to do with it. Almost every substantive edit since not long after this article was created has been made by employees of a PR firm (see Bell Pottinger COI Investigations) determined to make this look like a happy, shiny company that we should all invest our money in and equally determined to remove any mention of allegations that the business has a shadier side. However, once we remove the fluff, we're basically left with "Dahabshiil is a money transfer business and it is alleged to have connections to terrorism". I wouldn't be comfortable with that, so I'm bringing it here to determine whether consensus is comfortable with that, whether we want to delete it (my personal preference), or whether there's hope for it that I've overlooked. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I think we all agree that all editing on the wikipedia and its sibling projects should be made by genuine volunteers who are putting the wikipedia's principles and interests first. I did a google news search on Dahabshiil.
 * 1) Since this article was started in 2006 sufficient WP:RS have written about the firm to write a neutral, balanced article that complies with the wikipedia's standards of 2012.  Since I worked on the article perfectly adequate WP:RS have been written, that support the notability of the topic.  Here are two references that, I suggest, are sufficient to support a neutrally written article.
 * 2) * mirror
 * 3) * mirror
 * 4) That google search turned up an article which substantiates that Dahabshiil has paid a PR firm to tailor Dahabshiil's online footprint -- and that this firm employed shills -- individuals who pretended to be ordinary people but who were actually following a deep covert strategy led by the PR firm.  That is bad.  It is contrary to our policies.  This kind of activity is disruptive.  We should root it out, whenever we find it.  When we found that some US Congressional staffers were covertly polishing up the articles of their bosses I think we temporarily blocked the range of IP addresses used by the US Congress.  We didn't just delete the articles they worked.
 * 5) * mirror
 * 6) The nomination seems to be complaining that recent edits represent the company as a law-abiding good corporate citizen.  I suggest that, with some exceptions, the public record does suggest Dahabshiil is a good corporate citizen.
 * 7) * WP:RS substantiate that the firm is charitable.
 * 8) * Prior to 9-11 remittance companies, like Dahabshiil, did not have the kind of record keeping that would aid law enforcement and security officials in tracing money-laundering. But WP:RS substantiate that both Dahabshiil, and its main competitor, Al Barakat, did quickly implement that kind of record keeping.
 * 9) * Remittances from Somali exiles, emigres and guest workers -- through Dahabshiil -- is the top legitimate source of foreign exchange for war-torn Somalia.
 * The two exceptions to their record of good corporate citizenship are:
 * 1) * Employing shills disturbs me. But, in their defence the internet is still in the wild-west phase.  Of course we don't think they should have employed shills to subvert the integrity of our content.  If Dahabshiil was an individual, concerned that an article about them was biased or inaccurate, we would have wanted them to write to the OTRS team, with documentation to substantiate their claim the article was inaccurate.  But are there really any standards about employing shills?  If there aren't I don't think this should strip them of good corporate citizenship.
 * 2) * They abandoned Barre, their employee. In this recent article they claimed he had stopped being part of their network some meaningful period prior to his apprehension by Pakistani security officials.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete tainted article the neutrality and authenticity can not be relied on. There should however be no bar on recreation, providing it is started from scratch. Mt  king  (edits)  20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken a very close look at some of references, and the material they supported. If, for the sake of argument, they were added by shills those shills added those references and that material in a largely policy-compliant neutral manner.  The main problem is that the shills removed controversies from the article.  I took a stab at restoring balanced, neutral coverage of those controversies.  Middayexpress, who did good work on this article, and who argued against the shills, without knowing they were shills, says below that he or she thought coverage of the controversies had been restored in a way that did not lapse from WP:UNDUE.  Frankly, in my opinion, the nomination very seriously exagerated the extent to which this article had been rendered unreliable by shills.  Now if you took a meaningful look at what the references actually say, and you still think there is a taint to the article, I request you be specific about how that taint is manifested.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I was contacted by Geo Swan for input on this Afd, having like him contributed to the article in the past as part of WikiProject Africa. While the Bell Pottinger/Biggleswiki lobbying situation is unfortunate, I think it's important here that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree with the assertion that we should take care not to place undue weight on the BP & related issues. Geo Swan's suggestions regarding Dahabshiil's general reputation also seem accurate. Per WP:NPOV, the best solution therefore seems to be to cite the relevant notable charges in proportion to their prominence; this seems to have already been done in the time since the page was nominated for deletion. We should also be careful as to how we word the discussion of the controversy since this TBI piece quotes a Dahabshiil spokesman denying knowledge of BP's Biggleswiki employee and its Wikipedia lobbying efforts, but admitting to having hired "communication specialists" to promote the company's services: "‘We have never heard of Biggleswiki, and know nothing about them. We are currently trying to get to the bottom of this and get information as to what is said to have happened.  We can certainly confirm that we have never asked anyone to do anything other than tell the truth about Dahabshiil.’ The spokesman added that the company used communications specialists to promote its services, in particular its work for charities." Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per MtKing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Looks like a large Somali bank but it may need more improvement. Katarighe (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * keep - as stated before a large somali bank..... but in definite need of improvements.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2011 (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.