Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Books

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

non notable company - already speedy deleted once at afd. Article repeatedly re-created by company founder. Has one reference to a telegraph article which is more about the uk governments finance guarantee scheme and his company being turned down for a loan despite this. noq (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books is accounting software. The Telegraph article notes that the number of businesses using the accounting software is 3,000. This reference makes Clear Books worthy of being noted as an accounting software because there is a published small business customer base. Consequently Clear Books should be listed in Comparison of accounting software. This comparison page requires that the accounting software has a wiki page.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did the Telegraph research your company to come up with this number or just publish a number you told them? noq (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to contact the Telegraph to determine its research and journalism practices. However, bearing in mind the Telegraph is one of the few quality broadsheet newspapers in the UK, I think it is safe to assume they have got their facts correct. Therefore can we move onto the point that if Clear Books is accounting software and if it has been qualified as accounting software then it should be listed in the comparison of accounting software?--TimFouracre (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another software company offering software as a service products advertising on Wikipedia. An incidental mention in an unrelated story indicating that this package has 3,000 customers does not magically turn this business into something that should be remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. There's one source, true, but there hasn't been any continual reliable coverage of this company. There's only one article out there, showing a lack of deep coverage of this company. It's just not a notable company. It doesn't matter how many people are supposedly using the software because usage rates doesn't really guarantee notability. If a product or company is that widely used, it's assumed that they'd have enough reliable coverage to pass notability guidelines. There just isn't enough reliable coverage to back up the claims in the single source, nor the claims of the company's president. Since the company's president keeps coming on to re-add the article after it was deleted, I recommend salting the article to ensure that it will not get re-added until it meets the guidelines for WP:CORP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment - There's a review but I'm not sure that's a reliable source. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Introduction to one of the main competitors here and online accountants here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.81.71 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Independent reviews by Chartered Accountants and bookkeepers e.g. here and here here. There are more.— 86.2.39.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Two recognised industry accounting software analysts have blogged here and here both painting the picture of the growth in the company in user numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.39.67 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 86.2.39.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Integration with Companies House is listed on the government's data.gove website here
Comment - Integration for filing VAT online is listed on HMRC's website here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.39.67 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 86.2.39.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. But are they considered notable and reliable enough per Wikipedia standards? One doesn't seem to have been used as a source on Wikipedia at all and the other is only sporadically used. They might work as trivial sources but they don't seem to be reliable enough to really count as bonafide reliable sources. I'm just worried that neither site is notable or reliable enough to count as a reliable source to show notability, especially since one is a blog site. We generally can only use blog entries if they're written by someone exceedingly notable. As far as the other two links go, they merely show that the company exists and cannot prove notability. Nobody is doubting that the company exists, just that it isn't notable enough to warrant an entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment Being listed on HMRC and data.gov.uk are strong endorsements for notability. The two bloggers who have blogged on Clear Books are also recognised industry bloggers. Try googling them here or here— 86.2.39.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:04, 7 January 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Listed on CrunchBase and passing reference in an article on a competitor in TechCrunch— 86.2.39.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:05, 7 January 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The accounting software itself has been accredited by Institute of Certified Bookkeepers. For the review click here. The original articles has been updated to reflect some of these new found references.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - More press coverage in PC Advisor here--TimFouracre (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - The accounting software was also reviewed in .net magazine in the UK, however, the article doesn't appear to be online yet.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not very inclined to believe your claims of the bloggers' notability since you work for the company and it's in your best interest to play up the importance and notability of these bloggers and any press release you give us. As far as the other links go, the only one that is somewhat usable is [1] and that's as a trivial source. The other two sources don't really show notability in the slightest. One is an industry listing and the other is a brief mention in an article. A reliable source that shows notability is an article that is in-depth about the subject matter, is by a trusted and reliable source, and is more than just a brief quote or mention. Accreditation does not bestow notability because there are a lot of places that get accredited in their various fields. It'd not easy to get, but it's not such a huge task that getting accredited would be considered noteworthy. It's accreditation, not the Nobel Prize. I hate to be frank, but you're pulling up all of these things and it just isn't showing enough notability. The company appears to be on the cusp of passing notability guidelines but it just isn't there yet and I really feel that your close connection with the company is making you see these sources as having more weight than they actually do. It's why it's discouraged for people with a conflict of interest to create and add to articles about things they are closely related to. It's just hard to see things in a neutral light.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the feedback tokyogirl79. The original motivation was to create an entry in the Comparison of accounting software wikipedia page. Let me reassess the Clear Books article based on whether Clear Books should be listed in the comparison of accounting software.

To answer that question I guess we need to ask whether Clear Books is accounting software? Yes. So the next question is - is it notable? I propose it is.

Before covering notability in more detail I would add that the industry analyst who you previously noted has been used as a reference elsewhere on wikipedia has written several articles about Clear Books which can be viewed here.

So, is Clear Books notable accounting software? Applying the definition of "notable" - I believe Clear Books does go that bit further than you first thought, and steps beyond the cusp.

"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

Fame, importance, or popularity may enhance the acceptability for notability. 3,000 businesses using Clear Books and 4,000 followers on twitter should help support the case.--TimFouracre (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TokyoGirl has already explained in detail that your "Significant coverage" is not significant. Frankly this seems mostly designed to promote your software on wikipedia which is not what it is for. Your conflict of interest is stopping you from seeing the problems - the reason why creating articles about where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged. Your desire to list your software on Wikipedia does not mean it should be listed. noq (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, let's look at significant coverage in isolation. The wikipedia definition is:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

Granted the following, although "reliable" sources, are not significant:

HMRC
data.gov.uk

However, I would suggest the following sources are "significant coverage" based on the above definition:

The Telegraph article
The Institute of Certified Bookkeepers review
The accounting software industry analyst articles
The PC Advisor article

--TimFouracre (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate that delete decisions are not based on the number of votes, but rather on the merits of evidence. I would really welcome the feedback to my above comment from the contributors who have been constructive and active on this page to date.--TimFouracre (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original article, Clear Books, has been revised to include additional references as discussed above which support the argument that Clear Books is notable accounting software.--TimFouracre (talk) 19:07, 16 January 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.