Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emochila

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 No consensus (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila[edit]

Emochila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Author declined prod. Company that does not provide sources to assert notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read this article fully. It contains relevant content, is footnoted with approximately 6 sites, and does not appear to be written maliciously, falsely, or without merit. I don't understand why it would be deleted. The main reason for deletion claims that the company does not provide sources to assert notability. What else could you need? Partnership affiliations from at least 4 major players, and audio at conventions? Cbrubaker (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)cbrubaker[reply]

— Cbrubaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I agree with cbrubaker. I am a CPA doing research on using this company, and I've read the entire thing. If there is a question about notoriety, they are the prime company used by everyone in my field for website devleopment, and that means the entire private-practice certified public accountant industry. I think this article is a good reference tool for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.206.202 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — 190.188.206.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
  • Weak delete. It is a well written short article, but the firm doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. The main criterion for that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while most of the sources here are press releases, which are not "independent of the subject". Has the company gotten coverage in newspapers, trade papers? CNet, PCWeek, Wired, The CPA Technology Advisor, CPA magazine, any of the other dozen or hundred computer or accounting magazines that exist? There is one exception, [1], which is a real article in a real paper, why this is only "weak", but "multiple", meaning more than one, are preferred to show that the company is notable. Find one more article like that, and I'll change to keep. --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*GRuban - Thanks for noting about the article in the paper and that you noted that you required at least one more. You even mentioned one of the trade magazines, The CPA Technology Advisor, who did a complete independent study on Emochila, hard printed and unsolicited in their December 2006 Trade Magazine. This is listed in the references of the Emochila Wiki Article (http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1016) and should suffice, right?

  • Here is another one provided by the Ecommerce Journal which is not a press release, and penned by an independent source. I am going to add this to the reference pages as we speak.

Kwintern (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)kwintern[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete user:190.188.206.202 removed my previous comment here, "The AfD notice has been removed from this honking load of spam." I'll expand on that comment by saying that this article should be deleted for being spam, and the company itself is not notable. The alleged sources are press releases or otherwise created by the company or its officers. 66.57.189.230 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with 66.57.189.230: the references given are not relevant to this discussion, and the "Press Coverage" links are press releases and/or blatant advertisements and/or from non-reliable sources. Plus, half of the article reads like an ad. Adrianwn (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I happen to think the article should stay. I'm a CPA in Washington state (see www.donrodman.com) who utilized this article a while back to determine this firm's merit in the field. I do not think the article is advertising based, nor do I feel that it's unreliable. I happen to subscribe to the CPA Tech Advisor, and it has published articles on Emochila not based on their payment for ad space but based on their independent research. It's a solid industry mag. Sure, some of the Press Coverage are press releases. Many articles are such. However, they meet the required 2 non-trivial, unrelated articles. Donrodman (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)donrodman— donrodman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
  • Press releases do not meet the requirements of WP:Notability, which specifically says " "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I recently edited this page in order to help readability and formatting. NO content was changed or removed in any way. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and checkuser. The article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Also, the above comment by donrodman was his first edit. A bit suspiscious. Undeath (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient references, and they don't seem to be all press releases. DGG (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might seem so at first, but have a closer look at the references:
  1. a BBB Reliability Report - doesn't indicate notability
  2. irrelevant to notability
  3. from company website - not a reliable source (RS)
  4. a review - can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?
  5. from company website - not a RS
  6. from company website - not a RS
and if you look at the press coverage:
  1. from company website - not a RS
  2. press release of a partner company - definitely not a RS
  3. advertisement/press release (?) or a partner company - see above
  4. "Greg asks Justin Curzi from eMochila what visitors will hear about when they make their way to the eMochila booth during the guided tour." - obviously not an independent source, hence not reliable
  5. press release - hardly a RS
  6. read the text - this is definitely not an independent source!
So no, the article does not cite any reliable sources which indicate the notability of the subject. Delete. Adrianwn (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference number 5 is displayed on the company website, but is pretty clearly a scan of an independent newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that it's a fake? I doubt it. Number 4 is a non-trivial review by an independent magazine - "can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?" - well, that's what notability means, that multiple independent reliable sources have "taken note" of the company, written non-trivial articles about it. That's really all that can be expected. If this were a singer, we'd accept articles in an independent music journal, since this is an accounting software company, we need to accept articles in an independent accounting software journal. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to weak keep. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't look into all company-links (sorry for that). As for the review: not every review indicates notability. I could publish an independent online-magazine (or even material magazine) and give a review, and the reviewee wouldn't automatically become notable. My objection was exactly this: is the source of the review notable enough so that his reviews indicate notability? I.e, is it reliable? Adrianwn (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an accountant, but from digging around, it looks like a respected source in the industry. We have an article on it, CPA Technology Advisor which isn't great, but says it was around since 1991, so it's at least not a fly-by-night journal. More important, I found this: [2] in which Reuters seems to be very proud of receiving an award from them. Reuters is one of the top N news agencies in the world, for a very small N, so I doubt they would be proud of receiving an award from just anybody. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been reading since the article was requested for reinstatement on 17 Aug. The above logic and research looks correct. Articles noted look non-trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.246.229 (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I have struck the comments by socks and blocked users. Undeath (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (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/Emochila&oldid=1142651520"