Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I'm leaving a longer than usual summary as there are a number of interventions made by persons connected to the entity under discussion. As a note to non-regular contributors, my conclusion is made purely on the discussion presented below. I've read through this twice. I've discouted all contributions that suggest retention which lack conformity to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and reliable sourcing. Of the contributions in conformity, that is those contributions which analyse sources to support or reject the subject's notability, two conclusions emerge; there are identifiable mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but these do not constitute significant coverage. The delete arguments are more affirmative in their assessment and refute arguments that some sources might constitute SIGCOV. Those refutations were not subsequently counter-refuted by those arguing keep, which as a group were less affirmative in their assessments. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lokad

[edit]


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

Lokad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, nothing much to say, article is entirely sourced to its on website. It was G11 deleted in 2015 but brought it here for more assessment of its currently notability standing perhaps there are sources somewhere which I failed to find Ednabrenze (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and France. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising from the ceo. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hard disagree. Yes, I happen to be the CEO, but the tone is neutral. A "Criticisms and Controversies" has been added. None of the other wikipedia pages discussing supply chain software companies has anything like that. This page already exceeds the standards that Wikipedia uphold for the quasi-totality of enterprise software companies. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, the content of this webpage can hardly be considered as "blatant adversiting". It is not hostile to the company and it mentions the specifics of the company but all Wikipedia pages about companies are similar in that regard. The reasoning according to which a Wiki page which presents a company in a favourable light should be deleted would lead to the deletion of essentially all pages about companies. This end result is disproportionate. It would also lead to another unfurtonaute consequence: people would only access the websites of companies, which are 100% promotional. Therefore, instead of deleting the webpage, I recommended a discussion about its content, if necessary. 109.190.36.117 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lokad is a major player in the supply chain optimization space, and as such it makes sense to have it on wikipedia even if, of course, one could consider it has an advertising effect for the company. But removing company pages based on this principle would lead to the deletion of most, if not all, company pages on wikipedia. I would approve the deletion if the page was explicitely displaying unproved marketing claims (like "provides the most powerful and efficient algorithm"), but the page as it is is just providing factual information about what they do, so I would not describe it as a "blatant advertising". Atchmoom (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited the page to include more non-Lokad sources. I have also introduce two sections to clarify the significance of the entry - beyond the corporate trivia (aka basic facts about Lokad). Joannes Vermorel (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applying overly strict criteria for company pages could unintentionally lead to removing many valuable and informative entries from Wikipedia. Perhaps it's more beneficial to focus on improving content quality rather than deletion? NB: As a Tech Advisor and Head of ML & Innovation, I consistently recommend Lokad's resources for inventory optimization and supply chain management projects in the DACH region. Wikipedia article is a good start. "Criticisms and Controversies" help to provide a balanced perspective on the topic from the start. Abdullin Rinat (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a professor, director of the MSc programme at the Polytechnic University of Porto, Portugal, and resercher in the field of Supply Chain Science, I consider the open dissemination of advanced and innovative technical content to be of the utmost importance for universities and society in general. Typically, innovative technology companies do not have this facet of contributing to the dissemination of technical knowledge through channels of universal access and high quality scientific content. Lokad's contribution to science and society through the dissemination of relevant and innovative technical content deserves the highest recognition. Its wikipedia page has been extremely useful as a reference for the academic community of technical-scientific excellence and service to society. In order to avoid the loss that would result from deleting the page, I recommend that, if you think something should be changed, you request those changes, which I'm sure will be in line with LOKAD's spirit and values. Thank you. MJPLopes (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand why this page is marked for deletion. Lokad is one of the few commercially successful AI startups in Europe. At a time when the general public largely equates AI with chatbots, highlighting companies that use AI to run operations (Lokad for supply chain optimization, the only other that comes to mind is aiomatic for predictive maintenance) is really important.
    I myself run an AI optimization startup in the US (insideopt.com) and I know how much work is needed to educate the public that modern computer science allows us to bring efficiency to a world that is battling with uncertainty and limited resources. Lokad is a company that helps make our supply chains more resilient and avoid reduce unnecessary transportation and wasted products.
    In my humble opinion, it fits Wikis mission to let the public know that these capabilities exist and exist as commercial offerings and not just in theory as research projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meinolf71 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Btw, insideopt.com has impressive contributions of its own. They are basically the one company that offers a stochastic (optimization) solver. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • fully agree with this statement. Lokad releases regularly discussions around their main area of expertise in Supply Chains and does tremendous work to educate the supply chain community around different approaches, strategies, theories and use cases. I bel ve that it fits the education mission of Wikipedia 197.18.182.181 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponyo, I have to ask a favor in such an obvious case--but could you? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:, from the technical data, if there is a connection between the accounts, it would be of the coordinated variety.-- Ponyobons mots 16:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we even try to attempt at assessing the merits and demerits of the actual Lokad page? I argue it is already better than the quasi-totality of the pages listing enterprise software vendors, especially when it comes to supply chain. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vermorel, no one has done that except the nominator. And when almost half a dozen brand-new editors show up, out of nowhere, all making the same argument, well. On top of that, we have an editor who makes edits like this one but claims they're not advertising. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those editors are quite well-known among supply chain circles - and they have nothing to do with Lokad: not clients, not (ex)employees, not contractors. As far I am concerned, I do have an obvious tie with Lokad (quite explicit though). Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" - all we can tell on our end is that these screen names were recently registered. We have no way of knowing if they are who they claim to be. For this reason, we go on the strength of arguments made on the basis of the article's conformance to our standards, especially for reliable sources and notability, not on our personal opinions as to the merits of Lokad. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed some of the PhD thesis of Lokad. Please note that those PhDs have been validated by independent institutions, those materials are peer-reviewed. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these sources, but I don't think any of them satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. E.g. the coverage in your first source is a single short paragraph that is mostly quoted from the founder. This La Tribune piece has the most coverage, but that's another paragraph mostly quoted from the founder, so not really satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, although I think you are being overly strict with CORPDEPTH in the case of the La Tribune piece: ~150 words are not quotes, which goes far beyond 100 words. My concern is more with independence of the piece. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Page created by company CEO, citing non-independent sources or trivial coverage. It does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The proposed deletion of this article is unwarranted and detrimental to the dissemination of fact-based knowledge in the supply chain field. As a supply chain professional, I rely on transparent, data-driven insights to assess policies and technologies. The subject of this article provides precisely that—informative, factual, and well-documented perspectives that challenge conventional thinking in a profession that often lacks critical contrarian viewpoints. Moreover, the article details the technology and services offered by Lokad, a company making meaningful contributions to supply chain optimization. Its removal would be an immeasurable disservice to Wikipedia’s mission of providing the public with diverse, verifiable knowledge. Eliminating such content undermines Wikipedia’s role as an open repository of expertise and thought leadership. Milos Vrzic – M4st8rYodA (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. Please see the note at the top of this page. It doesn't matter if someone created 500 accounts and all "voted" (it's not a vote) keep. It would have no impact whatsoever. This is a consensus building discussion, not a vote. Also, please see WP:SECONDARY. You are not a source. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing admin, please take account of several notes left for you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NORG. Not enough deep sources to prove notability.Nyasalones (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The sources above are very trivial mentions... This [10] is a discussion of their software in a journal article from Iran. I suppose many small sources are enough for a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Le Monde piece above has about a paragraph on the company, with a quote from the CEO. Meh, it's not perfect, but probably enough to confirm they exist, in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [11] is not a discussion of their software in a journal article. Lokad published some data of their sales and purchases on their website, and because of its detail this was used as a population to study a phenomenon. The only discussion of Lokad in the article is this: "شرکت لوکاد عرضهکننده تجهیزات مرتبط باحوزهی انفورماتیک است که کلیهی تأمینکنندگان آن تولیدکنندگان قطعات کامپیوتریمیباشد." which translates roughly as "Lokad is a company that offers equipment related to the field of informatics, with all of its suppliers being manufacturers of computer components." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The La Tribune and Le Monde sources and the Iranian one found by Oaktree b seem to be just enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. While it's WP:BASIC, the sources do exist, so I think it's only fair to keep the article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent sources. The article is promotional and fails NPOV. Spartathenian (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This AfD has pushed all my buttons. First, the obvious COI and the insistence (WALLOFTEXT) that we ignore policy and bend to the loud voices. Then there's the founder's red-linking himself, as if he is immanently to be notable by WP standards. Then, in editing, I decided to watch the video that was being used as a source, which is an interview with "Estelle Vermorel, cofounder of Lokad". The knowledgeable and articulate Mme Vermorel, however, is not mentioned in the WP article. This is both a master class in self-promotion but also in not accepting that you can't always get what you want. Lamona (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I appreciate Oaktree b's careful source analysis - he always does good work. Upon reading his analysis, my take is slightly different - Lokad is almost but not quite notable. Some of the "experts" whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to lobby for this spammy company should write papers covering Lokad's software and get them published in reputable peer-reviewed journals (none of that pay-to-play stuff). That or actually try to help us improve this project beyond their Lokad advocacy here. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:47, 27 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lokad&oldid=1282754160"