Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Books (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Clear Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no indication of notability. Article created by the company founder has no substantial WP:reliable sources. Previous afd closed as no consensus so hopefully this time a proper consensus can be found. noq (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is Clear Books notable accounting software? Applying the definition of "notable" - I believe Clear Books is.

  • "Significant coverage": SaaS analysts, HMRC, data.gov.uk, Telegraph article, PC Advisor article, Institute of Certified Bookkeepers
  • "Reliable" Independents analysts, government websites, recognised media publications and an independent bookkeeping body
  • "Sources" The sources are secondary
  • "Independent of the subject" All the references provided have not been written by anyone at Clear Books
  • "Presumed" Clear Books is accounting software and therefore should be eligible to be listed as accounting software

--TimFouracre (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unfortunately, this company hasn't yet reached the levels of notability required for this encyclopedia. User:TimFouracre misunderstands the criteria. The company should receive significant coverage (ie, not just trivial mentions) in reliable sources that address the company specifically. It isn't enough to simply be a company, you have to be a notable company. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dylan - thanks for the comments. Above I have tried to identify evidence that supports each area of notability as defined by wikipedia. Please can you specifically discount the references I have alluded to as I would argue that SaaS industry analysts, HMRC, government website, Telegraph, PC Advisor and ICB are both "Significant coverage" and "Reliable". --TimFouracre (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I can't access the first reference so I'll have to discount that for now. Ref 2 (AccMan) and Ref 3 (Diversity) are blogs; blogs aren't reliable sources. Ref.4 is a reliable source, but I'd question whether it is about Clear Books; I'd say it's about banking, and trivially mentions Clear Books. References 5 & 6 (Companies House and HMRC) only prove that the company exists, not that it's notable. Like I said, it isn't enough to just exist. You should carefully read WP:RS and WP:Notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the second reference the industry analyst is also used as a reference in the following wikipedia articles that I could find EditGrid, InniAccounts and Mark_Lee_(British_author_and_speaker). Therefore I would argue that this source is reliable as he has been used as a reference in other wikipedia articles.
The second industry analyst is also used as a reference in the following wikipedia articles Outright and Salesforce.com. Therefore I would again argue that this source is reliable.
Reference 4 you agree is reliable. The point of this reference was to support the number of customers Clear Books has i.e. 3,000 small businesses as referenced in the article by an agreed reliable source.
References 5 and 6 are from extremely reliable resources HMRC and data.gov.uk and prove that Clear Books is accounting software. Combined with the other sources there is a strong rounded argument that Clear Books is notable accounting software.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a Wikipedia article does not automatically make a reliable source - I have not found anything about how the ICB conducts its software reviews and it seems to hide them on its website. The link currently does not work properly anyway. Being used as part of a much larger number of references does not mean that the reference was considered as establishing notability. Being used in article that could arguable also be nominated for deletion does not establish notability. Showing existence does not show notability. And reference 4 while being a reliable source is as has been noted not significant coverage - the article is about banking and an aside with the number of customers claimed is not enough to make it notable. noq (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the assumption that if an organisation/person is listed or used elsewhere in wikipedia then it is proven as reliable as it has passed the review process - I believe that is a fair assumption to make. By that token I maintain that Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, the two SaaS industry analysts who are both referenced in several other wikipedia articles, Telegraph, HMRC, data.gov.uk are all reliable. At least two of these sources also have significant coverage which you must agree with? (and I would argue 3 of them do). The remaining reliable references provide additional support to notability in general. Fame, importance, or popularity may enhance the acceptability for notability. 3,000 businesses using Clear Books and 4,000 followers on twitter should therefore help support the case. Here is another example of Clear Books getting coverage in a notable publication PCAdvisor. Clear Books has also been reviewed in the December 2011 print version of .net_(magazine) although this is not online as yet.--TimFouracre (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out before that is not a safe assumption. The PC Advisor article seems to be all quotes from you. Wikipedia does not exist to help you promote your company so just adding links to your own quotes does not establish notability. noq (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, the two SaaS industry analysts who are both referenced in several other wikipedia articles, Telegraph, HMRC, data gov uk are all reliable. I also maintain that at least two of the sources have significant coverage.--TimFouracre (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G4/G11/A7 (pick any): multiple times deleted article with nothing indicating long term impact on history of humanity or at least basic notability. The references in the article do the good job of proving that this company shouldn't have an article: (1) a promotional in tone review of company's product from a organization earning on serving indiscriminate collection of bookkeeping resources, (2) blog, (3) blog, (4) an article with side mention of the company, (5) list entry and (6) directory item: nothing usable for WP:GNG purposes, needless to say about WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is incorrect to request the article is deleted because it has been deleted multiple times in the past. Obviously with time the accounting software has become more notable and continues to gain sources to support its notability. The current version of the article is different from the one that was most recently put up for deletion with no consensus reached. It is also completely different to the articles deleted 2 or 3 years ago when the accounting software was very new and not supported by any sources. Some of the sources may not prove notability in their own right, but as a collection I believe they all help support the argument for notability. I would suggest that blogs should not be discounted per Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. (2) and (3) Both the blogs are by recognised industry analysts who are also used as references elsewhere in wikipedia. (4) Supports the number of businesses using the accounting software. (1), (5) and (6) from very reliable resources support that Clear Books is accounting software and taken in conjunction with (2), (3) and (4) Clear Books is notable accounting software. --TimFouracre (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references that establish existence - which is not being questioned do not add to notability - you could have hundreds of directory entries but that does not make you any more notable. noq (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two references you refer to support the Clear_Books#Integrations section. Maybe those two specific references do not show notability but they are helpful references for that section of the article. --TimFouracre (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for at last recognising they do not help claims to notability. noq (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I maintain that in their own right those two specific references do not establish notability. However, they are useful references for the section of the article which you must agree with? They are also reliable sources, which you must agree with also, and therefore contribute to notability in general. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note about the new references: (1) simplybusiness ends with link for special pries for readers, (2) PC Advisor presents a followup to hot story, lacking in-depth information about the subject, (3) CloudAve – another blog and (4) Cambridge Judge Business School – a niche market research with no in-depth coverage about the topic; one can have such references for any B2B software. So nothing have changed in fact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding new references (0) you haven't referred to .net magazine (1) your point doesn't refer to whether the article is notable or not. (2) it's a story covered by a reliable source supporting that Clear Books is notable accounting software. (3) As I've mentioned before blogs cannot be discounted as sources per wikipedia guidance. Indeed CloudAve has been used as a source numerous times in wikipedia Google Results (4) Cambridge Judge Business School is indeed a niche market research because online accounting software is a new niche market. It's the only comparison report out there on online accounting software in the UK. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The PC advisor article it a report on your publicity stunt not that it thinks your company is notable. And the Cambridge report you commissioned is hardly independent = it would not exist if you had not paid for it. noq (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that Clear Books paid for the accounting software comparison report? The Cambridge Judge Business School is an academic institution, part of University of Cambridge - they are not commissioned to take on projects and the students are certainly not paid to do so.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clear Books article has been updated with new references to add further support that Clear Books is notable accounting software.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to repeat Keep - that is noted the first time. The cloudave links are obviously and admit to be from press releases from YOU. I notice that nobody has argued in your favour in either this or the previous afd - they all point out the same things which you just dismiss and rehash the same arguments noq (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I understand, it is not a matter of how many people argue one way or the other but the merits of the points put forward. I have added references from a Cambridge University report, PC Adviser, 2 references from CloudAve, a review in .Net Magazine and a review by Simply Business.--TimFouracre (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, the number of votes doesn't mean as much as the rationales. So, please, stop voting multiple times. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for putting the Keeps multiple times. I wasn't aware that was the etiquette. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, rehashed press releases from you and studies commissioned by you do not help establish notability. noq (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreed that Clear Books is accounting software i.e. there is existence. I maintain that from the range of references Clear Books is also notable accounting software. There are links to numerous reliable third party sources. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.--TimFouracre (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you feel that rehashed press releases and blogs should be enough but Wikipedia does not. You wish to promote your company does not make it notable. noq (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
noq unfortunately, your criticism of the article is focussed on the fact that I created it, rather than its cotent. I could have hidden behind an alias, but instead, I have been totally honest and used my real name. All I have done is present the facts and link to independent sources. Twice, you have put Clear Books forward for deletion. My wish is not to promote any company, it is to establish that Clear Books is notable accounting software. We agree that it is accounting software and I still stand by the fact that based on the numerous sources, it is notable accounting software. It is one of only a handful of new, online accounting software systems in the UK which makes it notable in its own right.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well this edit from you seems to imply you instigated the report even if you did not pay for it - I thought the original wording was commissioned but it seems I was mistaken. I am arguing against you because of the content and urging you to step back because you are too close to evaluate it properly. Looking at this implies your view that existence is the same as notability. Your desire to list your company on Wikipedia is not the same as it should be listed on Wikipedia. noq (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to stick to debating the current article in its current form rather than historic edits. I am promoting the inclusion of Clear Books in wikipedia because it is notable online accounting software as supported by numerous reliable sources.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:SPAM about the way other editors are going to react on your comment. Your honesty on your identity is really appreciated, but writing articles about own company or product is discouraged on Wikipedia for a good reason. If you poses good faith belief of your company and software being notable, better wait for it to get covered by uninvolved editor (you could speed up this process by submitting request to WP:AFC) and help him with sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Czarkoff - all I ask though is read the article Clear Books again and then say whether you think it is biased or written from such a view. All references are independently sourced.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did that (you saw I evaluated the additional sources) and confirmed my initial vied – I still believe this article should be speedy deleted with multiple matching criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Czarkoff, thanks for the feedback. I still believe that in totality the references in the article support notability. I would appreciate your views on each of the references if you think otherwise . --TimFouracre (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no press releases referenced in the Clear Books article. It is also not clear who the small-audience trade publications you refer to are. Please can you debate all of the 11 references made in the Clear Books article as opposed to Google News searches.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but there's no point repeating what everybody else has already told you about them. Notability is not about counting coup; it's about what makes this product stand out among the many other accounting software packages that gives it the kind of lasting significance in history, technology, or culture that makes it a subject you'd expect to have an article devoted to itself in an encyclopedia. This is what I am not seeing here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Clear Books different from other accounting software such as Quick Books or The Sage Group? The key difference is that traditional accounting software is accessed on the dektop it is installed on whereas Clear Books is online accounting software and accessible from the web. This is a technological advance in the delivery method for accounting software. What makes Clear Books stand out backed up by the listed references? First ever online accounting software comparison report, expenses scandal gesture, Telegraph article seeking bank loan, only accounting software listed with data.gov.uk for its integration with Companies House, coverage by industry analysts announcing customer numbers.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dahowlett I suspect the moderators are suspicious and perhaps taking a harder line than might be usual because the entry was originated by the company's CEO. Where I have difficulty comes in two areas: 1. the entry as currently constructed is unbalanced since it does not give any weight to some of the controversies surrounding the company. 2. TimFouracre argument that sources such as my own at AccMan should not be discounted seems reasonable. The blanket notion that blogs are not considered reliable sources is not quite correct. The [sources guldelines state] "are largely not acceptable" leaves room for blog sources to be acceptable within certain parameters. And he is right to state that AccMan as a Wikipedia source has been used in the past on a number of occasions as has Diversity. It is a matter of moderator judgment and perhaps further inquiry as to whether a specific source article is one that can be considered verifiable but that should not of itself amount to blanket discounting of the source. If those issues can be addressed then I would be in favour of the entry being kept.Dahowlett (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I'm not going to rehash the discussion of the sourcing but I agree with the analysis from those advocating deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia without Clear Books in is leaving a gap in the knowledge and ability to research accounting software. Someone using Wikipedia to research accounting software will be able to research the history of desktop based accounting software such as The Sage Group and QuickBooks, but when they try and find out more about the cloud accounting software packages that business owners are increasingly switching to, they’re not going to find all the facts. There is a whole movement against article deletion in Wikipedia as deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” — Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia. --TimFouracre (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TimFouracre (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note for closing admin: given the activity of select members of Wikipedia community in this and previous AfD I would suggest salting the name to ensure that next version of the article will go through WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD was closed on 00:10, 23 January 2012 as "no consensus". If this article is deleted this time, do you think the same guy will actually try to recreate it? Dream Focus 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it is highly probable. And I see no rationale behind "no consensus" closure of the previous AfD with both votes and arguments clearly being on "delete" side. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredible no consensus close. The only keep vote was by the founder of the company. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage of them and their activities found in a major newspaper, The Daily Telegraph[2]. I also found mention of their activities at PC Advisor (magazine) [3] which is also a reliable source. With 1,610 Google news archive search results, its hard to sort through and find which ones might give coverage to them. Dream Focus 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do these sources say about the topic of the article? After reading them I have no answer. Both qualify for passing mention of the software, which can be reviewed in depth as required to establish notability by our guidelines. Still no such review ever stated, even by TimFouracre. That said, how can a company with no notable products (novel technologies, means of marketing, etc.) be notable? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources supplied in-article and in this discussion are either trivial, sourced to trivial publications, or the result of (admittedly very clever) PR ploys like offering the software to scandal-ridden legislators. Additionally, it is clear to me that the previous AfD should have resulted in delete, given that the only person offering a keep argument was, in fact, the founder of the company. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have contacted the journalist who wrote the .Net Magazine Dec 2011 print article on accounting applications which included a section on Clear Books. I don't know why the article isn't online but he has indicated he will be able to provide at least a PDF version of the article. I believe this will be a notable reference and I will link to it as soon as I have a copy.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this source reviews in depth the software, it would be one of several sources needed. In plain English: not enough yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source found, changed !vote above to "keep":
  • Shanbhag, Raju (May 3, 2010). "Clear Books Announces Financing Deal to Improve SaaS Online Accounting Software". Financial Tech Spotlight. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site builds indiscriminate collection of reviews, with each of them lacking in-depth review of anything. Just doesn't count for purpose of establishing notability. The author's description also leaves at least mixed impression: "Raju Shanbhag is a Bangalore-based writer who has worked in various fields such as advertising" [sic]. Furthermore, this source doesn't have editorial oversight for "contributors'" submission, so it isn't reliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The source listed above is an article, not a review. It appears that Financial Tech Spotlight does have editorial oversight regarding what they choose to publish, or conversely, don't publish. It's not like a blog site where anything is automatically posted. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually search for any mention of editorial oversight, and all I found is an oversight of submissions via web form. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source and article are highly suspect. The article reads exactly like a press release -- unless we are to think that "landing a financing deal from key strategic investors for an undisclosed sum" (note how neither the investors nor the sum is mentioned -- this could, for all the article mentions, be a $1,000 loan from the founder's father-in-law) is newsworthy. After this overwhelmingly vague excuse for an article, the article promptly stops discussing the newsworthy financing deal altogether and spends the rest of its run concerned with what I'd call boilerplate PR fluff (e.g. the company is launching a new "viral website", the founder says the software is awesome and growing, etc.). Additionally, reading other submissions by this "columnist" don't tend to give much confidence that he does anything but write unattributed PR pieces. For example: [4], [5], [6]. Note, I picked those at random from his contributions; they all follow identical structure and style. I find it very hard to believe that this source is reliable and that this columnist is not being compensated for his columns. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the reliability of the source itself (Financial Tech Spotlight) is in question, and whether or not the article (Clear Books Announces Financing Deal to Improve SaaS Online Accounting Software) is essentially a rewrite of a press release. Retaining my "keep" !vote based upon coverage in The Telegraph, the PC Advisor article and the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers Software Review, which combined appears to qualify this topic as just meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability, nor do they even hint it may be in the future. Coverage (as pointed out above) has the look and feel of a well oiled PR operation and not coverage steaming form actual real world notability. Mtking (edits) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that sources do not even hint at notability in the future is in my opinion an unreasonable position to take. The sources have shown the growth over a couple of years to 3,000 customers (as supported most recently by the Telegraph article). Should this growth rate continue then there is a strong argument that the accounting software will become increasingly notable. Currently a documented 3,000 businesses rely on Clear Books every day to run their business, do their bookkeeping and maintain their accounts. The customers of those 3,000 businesses (i.e. hundreds of thousands of businesses and people) will consequently be invoiced through Clear Books. If these numbers continue to increase then the coverage and sources to further support the notability of this online accounting software are likely to increase.--TimFouracre (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User numbers, customers or reviews are no indication of notability, what I and others look for are people independently writing about this product, not what coverage the company can get by using press releases or PR tactics. This not only demonstrates a products notability, but is needed for good and well sourced article, because without them you have to use self sourced material. Mtking (edits) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Are you honestly saying that all the 11 references in Clear Books fail this test?--TimFouracre (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(This reference requires a registered account). It only mentions Clear Books twice, the first to say that "The poll (is) by accounting software company Clear Books" and the second that "Tim Fouracre, managing director of Clear Books, said" something about the survey and politicians. This is not significant coverage of the company, just in-passing mentions. Diego (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, another of your press releases has been published. noq (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Books did a survey that was taken by more than 50,000 people in the end in the run up to the 2010 general election. The results were published on the Clear Books website and news sources picked up on it. You can't put down a survey taken by 50,000 independent, autonomous people as advertorial content. Clear Books simply presented the findings. --TimFouracre (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this is advertorial, only that the source doesn't say anything about the Clear Books company itself so it doesn't establish notability. Diego (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what exactly does this link says about Clear Books' notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open question to those putting Clear Books article up for deletion. Are you improving Wikipedia by requesting that Clear Books accounting software is now removed? If not then the first rule of Wikipedia suggests you should ignore all other rules. The meaning of that is outlined here: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I would argue that by deleting this article you are requesting that information about a recognised accounting software (as supported by references) is being removed from Wikipedia, which is not an improvement.--TimFouracre (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, you are running up against institutional rules that are relatively hardened at Wikipedia in 2012. Your argument would be well received by many editors at Wikipedia who rarely are seen in deletion discussions, as well as many outside wikipedia. See this great 2007 post by Andrew Lih:[7]. I don't agree with some of these policies we now have, but I work within them to the best of my ability to save worthwhile content. Literally if there were two mainstream newspaper profiles articles of you/the company from a regional newspaper, you'd probably make it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really interesting article and got me thinking along the same lines. If I was one of the 3,000+ businesses using Clear Books and I wanted to find out a bit more about Clear Books on Wikipedia then if this article gets deleted, I would get a blank just like Andrew Lih got a blank on Michael Getler.--TimFouracre (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improving greatly. More questions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair enough if that's your viewpoint, however, some justification as to why deletion is an improvement would be appreciated. In my opinion you are advocating removing knowledge about this particular cloud based accounting software from Wikipedia. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no doubt that your software is useful, saves some time (and probably money, I don't know UK accounting software market at all) and deserves some publicity. I would be glad to see every article here having such a dedicated editor, willing to make the article better and ready to make changes when needed. Still, as I stated before, your company doesn't meet the criteria of notability, as all the sources have major defects. Apart from this issue, I would be very comfortable with voting keep, but breaking the notability policies expose the whole Wikipedia to the risk of becoming a mean of promotion, which is specifically dangerous in the field of companies and commercial products. If your article is kept, all the bogus references we have there will become the acceptable minimum, thus lowering the notability bar and actually more exposing Wikipedia to the risk I mentioned above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words but therein lies a very significant point. In the Clear Books article there are references to industry analysts, commentators and organisations who do know the industry and they are linking to and writing about Clear Books, in my opinion. --TimFouracre (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things a bit clearer: I am an experienced programmer and a long time OpenBSD user and a regular contributor to one of the sources generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. Can my blog be considered a reliable source for OpenBSD article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a recognised industry expert in your field? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. Here's an example of a blog used for references on Wikipedia JoelOnSoftware--TimFouracre (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the statement that someone is a recognized expert, should be proved by numerous (as opposed to just multiple) references to different reliable sources saying so. Actually, nearly every blogger has a set of links where his opinion is discussed (as opposed to the topic of opinion). I have several dozens of such links, though it doesn't make me a recognized expert. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are digressing a little here because the issue is not about you and your blog, however, if you contacted any online accounting software vendor and asked them to list 5 recognised cloud analysts, the sources listed in the Clear Books article would, imo, be named. Would you be in your field? If so, then I would say your blog should be a reference in its field.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If these blogs are only recognized by ISVs, they are nowhere close to be reliable sources. You are putting the bar too low: the idea was that recognized experts are people, whose reputation is higher then that of anyone else in the field. Simply put: you may consider a person to be an expert only if his opinion is credible enough to discard the opinions of reliable sources. Given the size of accounting software ecosystem there can't be experts in the field (in the sense of WP:SPS) at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of expert seems strange as by your definition only one person can ever be an expert in the field i.e. reputation higher than anyone else. If you are serious about debating this article fairly then research who the experts are in the field and let us know your findings rather than just, out of hand, refuting that the suggested industry analysts are indeed the experts in the field.--TimFouracre (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there is no expert in the field of bookkeeping software. I'm not convinced there is theoretical possibility that there would ever be at least one expert in such field. Any more clarifications I can help with? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N.B. I have an interest as a shareholder in the company that has invested in Clearbooks. My view is the article should be kept on the strength of the independant press coverage which has to be taken in the context of the fact the company is still small and growing. The main problem with the cited objections is that they appear to be coming from editors who appear to be unable to assume good faith. Several have made personal attacks on TimFouracre and don't really have any place in the debate. It is a great shame to see this I wish they would focus on the substantive issue of establishing notability through evidence and debate rather than making cynical commentary which goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Brenmcl (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Brenmcl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Examples? As of now, I see no single reference that could be used for establishing notability. If the article's author wasn't that vocal, this article would be deleted by now. Topics of many articles deleted in AfD have by far better coverage (eg. at least one source that may be considered reliable). That said, the notability of companies is not the subject of WP:GNG, but of WP:NCORP instead, and this article by far is short of references required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to present lack of supporting material within sources. Question: if all you had was the sources listed, could you write an article that would pass notability on this subject? Personally no, when half are simply interviews with MD about business not the subject, and most of the rest are notable mentions in a list of other similar suppliers. The PR spin of offering MPs free software was a great advertorial, but doesn't count as a reliable source. Good debate, and well batted TimFouracre, but personally doesn't presently pass WP:NOTAB. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems the creator and primary defender of the article has misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. My understanding is: "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Taking each of the sources in the article:
Daily Express. Reliable source, but not significant coverage. The article is about starting a business not Clear books.
HMRC. Merely a mention of the product. Not significant coverage.
data.gov.uk. One sentence isn't considered significant coverage
Granted these three do not show notability due to significant coverage. The latter 2 are still useful references in the context of the article.
"CloudAve". Significant coverage, but not a reliable source. Source is a blog.
"ClearBooks: betting for profit?". - Blog. not reliable source.
Diversity limited. Blog. not reliable source.
Each of these 3 'blogs' are used as references on other Wikipedia articles as mentioned previously. Additionally, blogs cannot be dismissed as a reference out of hand Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. As these are articles by industry analysts on cloud accounting I would suggest they are valid blogs in this context.
Institute of Certified Bookkeepers. Significant coverage, unlikely to be reliable source, as it is not, per WP:RS, either a scholarly publication or from a news organisation. Possibly debatable.
I would argue it is reliable. It has a membership of 150k. Are we seriously suggesting that this huge bookkeeping organisation is reviewing accounting software and is not reliable?
"UK Accounting Software Market Report". Published only on the company's website. Not independent coverage
The article is independent coverage as it was not written by Clear Books. It is simply hosted on the Clear Books website to provide access to it.
The Telegraph. - insufficient coverage. the article is not *about* Clear books.
The article is about Clear Books' failure to get a bank loan. Maybe Clear Books article should be updated to say Clear Books failed to get a bank loan from Barclays and then it would pass your criteria? In its current form the source is used as a reference for the number of customers the software has i.e. 3,000.
Simply Business. "The people at Clear Books have kindly given Simply Business readers the opportunity to try their software at a heavily reduced rate." Sorry, not independent.
Clear Books was approached after the article was written and asked if a discount could be provided. I maintain that is independent, but clearly a judgement call on whether you believe that the discount came before or after.
Financial Tech Spotlight. Not comfortable with this. Similar to PC advisor, but I'm not familiar with the source, and it is far too much "Clear Books say x" rather than being something which has involved a degree of fact checking.
"Clear Books gives MPs free accounting software". PC Advisor. I'm going to say, tentatively, yes to this one. Reliable source (news organisation), significant coverage (*about* Clear Books). I recognise concerns that it's just a recycled press release, but its one in which a recognised magazine has seen fit to post.
So two tentative passes here. In summary I appreciate you taking the time to go through each reference which is exactly what was needed. I do believe that some of the references have been overlooked in terms of their notability.--TimFouracre (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the creator's frustrations in seeing some of his competitors listed on here, but intentionally or not, he appears to have failed to grasp the way Wikipedia actually works and the standards that are applied to determining whether articles have a place here. Wikipedia is not a directory. I'd love to have my business listed on here, but it's not going to happen. (yet.)
Some examples of good sources for verifying notability of companies:
[8] - well known news organisation, article is ABOUT the company, doesn't just mention it in passing.
[9] - well known tech source, article is ABOUT the company. 84.9.58.151 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A mention in techcrunch that proves once again that it exists and nothing else. We know it exsts we don;t need more references to prove that. And a list of blog entries. Techfluff part of newspepper which is an internet marketing and PR firm, Killerstartups a "user driven internet startups community", entrepeneurship interviews a random blog, nmqb a blog from a small company. noq (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And all are too short. The policy requires in-depth review, this software can be reviewed in depth, just no reliable sources consider it notable enough. Also, I would note that references about the software won't help to establish notability of company, and vice verse. As of now, we have nothing to establish notability of any of these. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments – These are NOT !votes)
As for a week now there is nothing new in this discussion, it seems to be a good idea to summarize the results for closing admin:

  • Keep: the useful software that has some blog coverage, some reviews by market research firms and professional associations. Voters: author (founder of the company in question), 2 SPAs and 2 uninvolved editors.
  • Delete: neither of sources satisfies the WP:IRS guideline, nearly all are passing mentions, with the rest of them being either unambiguous advertising or entry in the indiscriminate collection; the article is about company, but most sources are about product. Voters: 8 uninvolved editors in this AfD, 1 in previous (recent enough to count).

The standing remains since the first day of this AfD with only numerical changes in votes. WP:Article Rescue Squadron was invited. No new arguments, no convincing evidence. Though, due to the activity of the author of the article, this AfD will run until stopped. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that a summary by the main protagonist for delete vote provides an independent or fair summary as there is a bias towards delete. For example, the Clear Books article has now been tidied up by someone independent of Clear Books. It also has more references than the first time it was put up for AfD and indeed more references as a result of this second AfD. --TimFouracre (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in The Telegraph, the PC Advisor article and the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers Software Review are sufficient for me to have this article kept as notable and having reliable sources. That the article is also useful for those considering buying the software is considered irrelevant by current Wikipedia standards, but it is certainly one reason that readers and not just the editors come to Wikipedia to look something up. Administrators are free to disregard that statement, and deletion advocates may criticize me for saying it, but it is inescapable that some people only read Wikipedia when they want useful and practical advice on a purchase. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a problem, then of solution: you are trying to put Wikipedia's reputation for this company. FWIW, it is a very bad idea, given the quality of references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Czarkoff, I feel you are treating the references unfairly. There are now a few people, besides me, who have said enough of the references are reasonable for notability. I was looking at a recent AfD you were involved in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apollo_(software) where you are quoted as saying "the sources this article has are not as good as one may generally expects" yet you changed your mind from a Delete to a Keep vote. That sounds like a contradiction with your statement above. You also said "in the end this article has a devoted editor who will gradually improve it" Aren't we in exactly the same situation here?--TimFouracre (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources there were just not as dramatically bad as these. That article was about software and the sources were about software, and they were extensive, not promotional and implying notability, which is absolutely not the case here. I indeed have the strong feelings against this article and these sources, as most of them are either side mention or just plain spam. Actually both this article and this discussion should be preserved somewhere as an example of what should be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:N. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd to say that Wikipedia's reputation rubs off on any particular article, and people who come to Wikipedia for useful information can look at the sources for themselves. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your logic Wikipedia should have an entry on every commercial product ever released – readers might want to investigate it. Thus either you have some reasons to believe that ClearBooks stand out from the list of other products or you just don't like notability guideline. Which one is the case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Czarkoff, here's that .Net Magazine reference (taken with iPhone) full page and Clear Books section. I don't know why the article isn't online but it is issue 222, December 2011, page 29. If you can't make out the text I can type it up which should help make it easier to read.--TimFouracre (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either this review makes notable all these pieces of software (why?) or none of them. Given that our guidelines require in-depth review, which is not the case here. And finally this has nothing to deal with notability of this article, as it doesn't mention the company at all! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TimFouracre, the best you can do now is just accept that your company isn't notable and go to WP:AFC to create article about the software called ClearBooks. If you want, I can help with the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (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/Clear_Books_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137719845"