Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arithmo

: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. MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Arithmo]]=

:{{la|Arithmo}} ([{{fullurl:Arithmo|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arithmo}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No evidence whatsoever of WP:CORP notability. Speedied once as an advertisement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. They do have one non-trivial review on their website, from Practising Accountant magazine.[http://www.arithmo.co.uk/pdfs/software_review_Practising_Accountant_2008.pdf] However, I can't find anything about that magazine anywhere else but from them. The only other thing I can find is [http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=107035&d=883&h=884&f=882&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y this "advertorial"], which isn't very independent. Not quite enough independent coverage from reliable sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

: the wikipedia entry also includes an [http://www.bookkeepers.org.uk/members_area/latest_news/story175.htm independant review and accreditation] from the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, as this came about before the product was rebranded, I have included the link, also from the ICB that [http://www.bookkeepers.org.uk/members_area/latest_news/story238.htm tells of it's name change]. We are currently looking to the the product reviewed by AccountingWeb and will include a link to this in due course Genciamedia (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also found [http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=185025&d=1025&h=1073&f=1026&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y this announcement] of the name change to Arithmo, but this still strikes me as non-notable, since I can't find any coverage in any other reliable sources, and these announcements really sound like press releases. Delete for now — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:I feel that an objective review by the [http://www.bookkeepers.org.uk/ Institute of Certified Bookkeepers] would be considered as notable, why would it not be? Whilst I do not wish to see other entries deleted, when putting the entry together we look at a number of links from the Comparison of accounting software page as to the sort of information we should include and it's clear that this article has more evidence of notability than a number of entries on there, does it not? Am in the process of finding out if there have been any more independent reviews of the product and will add these as and when. Genciamedia (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete. It's certified. It's reviewed at least once. It won "best download" from a non-mainstream site. None of this makes it notable. Doesn't look like any sources have been missed either; this is as good as it gets. 9Nak (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::By Wikipedia's own definition, Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." For an accounting product to be certified by the Institure of Certified Bookkeepers would mean that this product is notable. As for [http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ accounting web] being "non-mainstream" - this is subjective - as far as accountancy in the UK goes, it is an important website. Genciamedia (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Uh, no, a single certification is nowhere near proof of notability. You may be confusing notability within the accounting software industry with notability in the big, wide world (including Wikipedia). But a quick and easy way around that would be citing a half dozen or so reliable secondary sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this product. 9Nak (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.