Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Books (3rd nomination)

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 and salt. Notability concerns raised by the delete !voters were not adequately refuted, and many on the keep side relied on WP:ITSNOTABLE rationales. The article has sources, and these sources certainly demonstrate the existence of the software, but it was not sufficiently argued that they also demonstrate its notability. While it was argued that a few of the sources were reliable sources, the coverage in those sources was not shown to be significant. Ultimately, the software does not pass WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. As this is the third AfD on this article in as many months, it will be salted. Anyone wishing to re-create this article may ask for permission at deletion review. —SW— comment 14:19, 30 March 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)

As per very recent deletion discussions, the last of which ended with deletion a few days ago. G4 declined on the basis that this is now about the software rather than the company. The same notability concerns are present, as it has largely the same references. The subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The lead's a tad promotional for example: "It is designed to provide an intuitive and easy to use web-based replacement for more traditional desktop software." Other than that, if the article was deleted earlier because of poor sourcing, there's no way that we should re-create the article if there are no better references. Minima© (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Previous article was about the company. This one is about the software and the references support Clear Books as accounting software. Per WP:NSOFT Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. The field of Clear Books is online accounting software. Clear Books is discussed as online accounting software in e.g. .NetMagazine, ICB and Killerstartups source. --TimFouracre (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: previous AfDs were about the company article which failed to satisfy WP:NCORP due to lack of sources about the company. The software however was covered in sources, which was noted in previous AfDs, so I created this draft and submitted to WP:AFC, so that another editor, uninvolved in previous AfDs could judge on notability, sourcing and tone of article without prejudice. This resulted in article being moved into main space. The statement that "the same notability concerns are present" is pretty puzzling in this context, as the notability of this software was never discussed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Will review further, but this is clearly a different article. Software articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Video Converter routinely get kept with similar sourcing, so I need to review.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may be a different article (sorta) but the sources are pretty much the same. The AfD that Milowent references above features a topic with clearly superior sourcing; reviews in publications like PC World and Softpedia. Look at the sourcing the company's founder, User:TimFouracre, supplies above. A curiously PR-ish love letter from "KillerStartups," an article from the "Institute of Certified Bookkeepers"...and a small blurb from .Net Magazine. The last of these is probably the best foundation for notability, and I suspect some people may consider it significant coverage. The second of these is coverage from a source of extremely limited scope, so I'd tend to discount it. The first of these, in my opinion, should simply be tossed out. All told, I think this is not as clear a delete situation as we had with the previous two Clear Books articles, but I still think we should delete this. These are the same references. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, the founder here. In the previous article that got deleted the references were supporting Clear Books as a company whereas in fact most of the references are about Clear Books as online accounting software. So the context is different. The question is, is Clear Books notable online accounting software? It seems we at least agree that one of the references supports this, .Net Magazine. I would also like to make the point that I had no input on the creation of this article whatsoever and indeed it went through AfC this time. --TimFouracre (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Points all very well-taken, and I greatly appreciate that the article is now coming to us from AfC -- a project that I am a member of and have huge respect for. I also agree that shifting the subject of the article changes both the context and how the sources should be evaluated. That said, I'm still coming to the same conclusions. I will qualify that by saying that I don't feel quite as strongly about things this time. I thought the article about the company was an unambiguous, slam-dunk delete. This...less so. Here I'm making entirely subjective assessments of the sourcing. I definitely agree that the .Net magazine source is completely legitimate; my concern, and it is, again, a subjective one, is with significance, particularly given the "crowded field" the software sits in (per WP:NSOFT). I hope this helps clarify my comments. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a judgment call. I wrote this article just because I promised that to TimFouracre and I expected that it won't pass WP:AFC actually due to the really weak sourcing. That said, I wrote this article in a pure neutral way (yes, the wording "easy to use" is a statement of a sourced fact, not a jingle) with each and every sentence being directly supported by secondary sources. Though I would vote "keep" in this AfD (as that would be in line with all the similar AfDs in past few months), it is really not a straight forward case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per poor sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be almost identical to the previously deleted article. See that for arguments about the relevance of the references. Most of them appear to be rehashes of press releases, the Telegraph is about banking using the company as an example - not coverage of the software except for a quote about the number of users. I am really not sure why Dmitrij D. Czarkoff recreated it after !voting for its deletion immediately before. noq (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The software and the company are both notable, but the software is more so than the company. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff recreated this page about the software after voting for deletion of the page about the company immediately before. This shows the good faith and spirit of the Wikipedia community is still alive. To take a quote from noq 's civility award "It gave me faith in the discussion pages..." If you are unsure of the notability it is clear that the largest broadsheet in the UK would not be interested in the number of users a piece of software has if it were not notable there are a number of other reasons it is notable which have been cited already. (as previously declared I have an interest as a shareholder/director in an company that has invested in Clear Books.) Brenmcl (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the company might not notable (until now), but the software is indeed notable as it is shown in the multiple RS. mabdul 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where is the significant coverage - its mostly rehashed press releases or side mentions. noq (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources in the article clearly are not rehashed press releases or side mentions. Also we have now an established precedent of keeping articles with much weaker sourcing and I don't like Wikipedia policy rationale, so it would be unfair to delete this now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I second that, e.g. The Telegraph and the PC Advisor articles are highly reliable and independent and indeed no "rehashed press releases". If there are really similar press releases, then please show me, you even can send them me per (e- and analog-)mail if you want. -.- mabdul 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither of those are listed as references but as further reading. They also do not talk about the software other than in a very minor way - not significant coverage of the software. The Telegraph article about banking mentions the software in passing and the PC Advisor story is about a publicity stunt. The Alexa reference is nothing significant to establish notability, The Institute of certified bookkeepers has already been questioned as a reliable source, the simply business article is from an insurance broker - not sure how their opinions are significant, The .net article is just a small mention, Financial tech spotlight title is "Clear books announces..." which practically shouts press release, HMRC and Companies house are directory entries, and "KillerStartups.com is a user driven internet startups community" - so not a reliable source. Have I missed any? noq (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • .net's article is a review of accounting software in the field. Given the number of entries, it gives us clear implication of notability as required by WP:NSOFT. Financial tech uses the announcement as a newsbreak, not a distinct source, which is quite evident from the text (though the personality of author raises questions). KillerStartup article is written by a stuff member with high amount of publications; many news sites identify themselves as communities which says exactly nothing about their reliability and editorial oversight. The insurance broker is not affiliated with the product in question, so I don't see how this authorship statement affects this source. Overall is a way more then needed per WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. And of course by far more then needed as of recent AfDs' outcomes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's a small part of the .net article. The FinanceTech article just seems to be press release material to me lots of the company claims and such like. I don't see any evidence of the killerstartup article being a staff member. The insurance brokers may be independent but are they relevant authorities to talk about accounting software? Did these other afd's lead to a change in notability criteria? If not they are not relevant. noq (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have suggested further references to support accounting software case on Talk:Clear_Books including appappeal.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More directory entries that prove it exists - as stated in the previous afd, this is not in dispute, what is in dispute is notability not existence. noq (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TimFouracre (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unaware of that. Always learning so noted - thanks--TimFouracre (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any evidence ClearBooks software even has a PR team, I don't think the company employs anyone in that role and I am an investor. This argument and other arguments about rehashing press releases are pretty weak cement they suggest that you question the independence of editors in UK national newspapers and large publications again presumably without any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmcl (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really, this should have been speedily deleted as a recreation of material deleted after a prior discussion; claiming that this article is about the software rather than the business is hair-splitting when they share the same name. A publication about "KillerStartups" may or may not be a reliable source, but almost by definition is not helpful when considering notability. It's a buzz site for business startups, and startups, by definition, are not established businesses that have even had a chance at becoming encyclopedia subjects. The remaining coverage details routine transactions. None of the sources really establishes more than that the product exists and is available, it's all in tech related accounting or trade publications, this is back office software offered through the Internet, and neither the article nor any offered source establishes that this product has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture, not even in the accounting industry itself. The publicity stunt of offering it to MPs is not that, either; publicity stunts have the same issues that other self-published sources do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switching from desktop to online accounting software is a huge technological impact. It's the same impact that caused Wikipedia to replace Encarta. It's the flexibility and power of web access and collaboration. 3000+ small businesses are benefiting (supported by Telegraph article). Net Magazine is a notable review which has been totally ignored.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a reliable source that says that your business was the first one to offer a routine software product through a web interface? FWIW, reviews, especially in trade publications, establish little more than a product exists, and nobody disputes that. But there are many accounting software packages, web based and otherwise, and what they do mostly is add, subtract, multiply, and divide. This in itself is not enough to get this product its own article in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you need to be the first to do anything to be notable? Notability is not about perfection, surely it is about being noted by a reliable source the rest is your opinion about how notable something is. I would suggest you set the bar to far too high would there even be a wikipedia left if this view were to prevail? Brenmcl (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about counting sources; it's about what the sources say, and whether the sources say things that will turn this product into an appropriate subject for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Finding a subject notable is exactly equal to a claim that this product deserves a stand alone article; and because notability is not temporary, that means that fifty and five thousand years from now, it will still be thought worthy of mention in the development of its field. Nothing I've seen suggests that this product has that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that 50,000 years ago when modern man was dealing with migrating out of Africa for the first time that the 99% of Wikipedia today not subject to threat of deletion would be notable. I hate to tell you but I think they may have had slightly more pressing concerns and sadly I don't think they could read any of the languages wikipedia is available in either. Notability is therefore most certainly temporal, as with all things in life, and at this point in the context of today's society Clear Books software is notable and notability is not temporary needs an update. Brenmcl (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got that a bit backwards. And yes, encyclopedia subjects from 50,000 years ago (fire? stone tool? woolly mammoth?) remain as notable as they ever were, but Foo the Hunter's Meats and Bar the Knapper's Hardware never made the grade; they weren't encyclopedia material then and aren't now, either; and neither is Clear Books. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately what I am saying needed to be backward to address your original points. I am drawing attention to the points you don't need to be the first and you don't need to be significant for 50,000 or even 5,000 years to be notable in wikipedia because others may adopt this kind of unnecessary and harmful "high bar" criteria for judging notability if your comments were left to stand. By the way the woolly mammoth is now extinct and I think it would be major worldwide news on every single news outlet if we discovered evidence of a business like Foo the Hunter's Meats from 50,000 years ago. Brenmcl (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "high bar", I gather you mean "actual encyclopedic significance", the sort of notability, whether achievement or infamy, that gets a subject remembered in an encyclopedia. This high bar exists because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or catalogue, and the only subjects that should have stand alone articles are ones that would not seem out of place in a general-coverage encyclopedia. I am not convinced that any of the offered sources say anything that would turn this product or its maker into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "high bar" I was actually only referring to what I believe were unnecessarily strict examples you were using to establish notability. ("50,000 years" and "first one to offer a routine software product through a web interface") I also take issue with notability is not temporary as it seems to me everything in life is temporal and this very AFD is an an example of the temporal nature of notability - the first outcome was no consensus, the second delete and the third could be either of these or perhaps even Keep. I fully accept that articles should not seem out of place in a general-coverage encyclopedia like Wikipedia but I also believe this concept of "out of place" too is cultural and therefore temporal. Of course I acknowledge it is evolving at only a glacial pace much like the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm, upon which policy and law is based. Brenmcl (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This article is about the Clear Books software and accounting service provided over the Internet. The Telegraph and the PC Advisor articles are reliable, independent sources demonstrating that the UK public is well informed about this software, and about the company that developed it, as well. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) has provided an article using the skills of the experienced Wikipedia editor that he is, and I say, well done to him, and I say, Keep this article, to the administrator who reads this discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Telegraph article is not about the software - it just mentions in passing a claimed number of users - not significant coverage. The PC Advisor article is about a publicity stunt where the company gave away some software to get some publicity - only tangentially about the software. Please see previous comments where this has been gone over ad nauseum. noq (talk) 20:43, 18 March 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, Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't apply, even Articles for Creation apparently greenlighted this new version.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that G4 doesn't apply. Article is about a software and not the history of a company. Article went through AfC.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It never really went through afc as it was tagged as a closed request by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff when it was moved to the afc page. No review appears to have been done. Another editor moved it main space without comment possibly just tidying up what they believed was a closed review. noq (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue: as one can see from this diff, the second parameter of {{AFC submission}} was never filled in, so the review was never closed. This template doesn't even support the form of "closed as accepted"! The reviewer just moved the page with open {{AFC submission}} and removed the template. noq, next time before accusing me of fraud, please, do your homework first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this. It shows as in the process of being closed by the reviewer - and was at a time only you had edited the article. I am not saying that it was deliberate but the AfC was done incorrectly. noq (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{AFC submission}} rendering depends on the namespace (see the "#if:{{NAMESPACE}}" clause in the source), so it just can't render another way in main namespace. If you wouldn't take my word on it, compare the template with any pending AFC submission and look at the history of articles coming from AfC. It was indeed not closed by me, and indeed it can't be closed otherwise then by declining or moving to the main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I was not aware of that. noq (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most interesting part here is that WP:AFC people tend to pass the articles with questionable notability (that is, article would generally be accepted if the lack of notability isn't evident), so the reference to the AfC submission appears to be of no use in deletion discussion. If I knew it by the time of 2nd nomination, I wouldn't recommend this process to TimFouracre back then and wouldn't write this article at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a comment from the reviewer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not sure that AfC reviewer was aware of previous AfDs or ever looked over the deletion log of the target page. When I was submitting the article at AfC I expected some more restrictive approach to evaluating submissions. In fact I nominated for AfD three or four article from AfC since the beginning of this discussion and neither of them received keep votes yet, so I wouldn't mention AfC approval as a reason to keep the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rely on it either, but it might remind people that articles like this float around everywhere on the project. Its not an affront to wikipedia's existence, even if it should be deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The shift from focus on the company to the software has not changed the fact that the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd recommend WP:SALT if this is deleted. Note two speedy deletions (A7 and/or G11), one proposed deletion, two prior AfDs (one no consensus, one delete) and now this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been put up twice for AfD by the same person noq and this time by Dylanfromthenorth. Both have been arguing the delete side throughout all AfDs so they are hardly impartial. Someone independent of previous debate would have had more credence as they would not have an immediate bias against any re-creation. Also, each time the article has come back it has been better written and with more sources so it's like comparing chalk and cheese. e.g. .Net Magazine source was not in previous article.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Sources provided fail to establish notability by a long-shot. Scant mention in independent sources, mostly brief, trivial, routine, tangential or a rehash of PR press releases. Nothing substantial enough to establish notability per WP:NSOFT. Highly doubt that sources establishing notability will ever be found. My own search turned up nothing even faintly promising. In short, neither the company nor its product is notable. The article still fails either guideline. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I proposed the article originally because I believe that it meets the notability guidelines to justify an entry. There clearly have been a number of people who disagree with me as well as a number who agree. I am sure the closing admin can evaluate the merits of either argument and I will accept that judgement. I am confident as time passes Clear Books will become more and more notable. How it measures up now I realise I am not best placed to judge. There is no need to salt the page 'if' it is deleted and I feel sad that this community is treating me with contempt by suggesting this. I'd like to thank those who have helped with the page and contributed to the debate on both sides.--TimFouracre (talk) 11:21, 27 March 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.