Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiwa Financials

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwa Financials[edit]

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

one primary source fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. (2 SPA editors incl creator, looks like COI spam) . Even if passed GNG, what's this notable for? Widefox; talk 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has been moved to Jiwa (Software).Dialectric (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a highly inappropriate move as there's an open move request, and this AfD. I objected to the move (by one of the two COI editors) and reverted it. Widefox; talk 10:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found one piece of brief coverage from 2004 of another software item integrating with this package, and it is mentioned in a sector list in Bookkeeping for Dummies. These provide independent basic verification, but do not indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote the article initially and took care to be factual to avoid COI issues. The lack of notability issue I contest as the article is about a product no less notable than competing products which do have wikipedia articles. Informing the public is an objective of Wikipedia, yes? I think it appropriate then that informing the public of alternate products in the Accounting Software and ERP categories includes the product Jiwa and the publisher, Jiwa Financials.Mikesheen (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)— Mikesheen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a strong argument. As you have a COI, I'm not even going to ask which ones and delete them. Widefox; talk 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PRODUCT Numerous independent references around the web including software catalogues and independent forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottpearce1976 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Scottpearce1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Product catalogues and forum postings fall short of being reliable sources to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Do you have two that meet WP:RS ? Widefox; talk 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two COI editors - please be aware of WP:MEAT. This is not a vote here, and having two COI / SPA !voters should be taken into account in closing. Widefox; talk 10:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've found no mention of the software when doing a search for the words Jiwa and accounting in Trove's archived Australian websites, The Internet Archive, and Google News. I found one potential newspaper article] from The Australian in 1998, but that just says that it exists... Unless the original author(s) can demonstrate independent reliable sources it should be deleted. Witty lama 20:00, 23 October 2014 (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.