421:
with a lot more coverage. It's a story of a small business scraping through the largest economic downturn since the depression of the 1930's. Someone noted that my account was "seemed to be a single purpose account: the reason that I know about
Arquila, and started this article was through their help and support of Edinburgh PHP users group, and thought that Arquila/Insight could use an entry on Knowledge. I profess no expertise in writing wikipedia articles, or even encyclopedia articles. I just would like to see an article in Knowledge about this product and company, and iluminate a sector which is basically dominated by Intuit, and Sage. Arquila does not have the time and energy to spend in PR to generate press releases so that it get articles published about it in the media, but I think this story, right here is one, then you all will become infamous about your over-zealousy in trying to keep small business out. You are not creating a welcoming atmostsphere, but rather a toxic place that people just do not want to contribute too. Arquila Insight belongs in the ERP/Accounting/Workflow grouping, so please let it. I personally want the article to be the best that it can be, so please inform and dicuss how that it can be better. It is very easy to prove how clever you are, by finding fault with in something, but what does actually prove? That you can find defects in things? If every article was forced to the kinds of standards that you seem to be leveraging on to this one, there would be no wikipedia. Does anyone know about callweaver? There is no article about it on wikipedia because of a consorted effort by some people to have the article removed, yet the article about Asterisk remains. I do question your bias against business articles, and simply think that is unfair. To be sure, this whole thing surrounding the question of the removal of this article is certainly give me a very bad experience and impression of wikipedia, and in this day and age of personal experience, that is everything.
217:
401:
People here don't have it in for small businesses; it's just that they don't want
Knowledge turned into a business directory. There are other sites that perform that function. As for the definition of notability, your point is taken but then the question is how do you judge "effects on culture, ..."?
389:
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have
486:
Arquila INSIGHT has been added to the comparison of accountancy software. This software is as relevant as all the other articles listed in the comparison chart. Arquila in 2009 was invited to be a member of BASDA (Business
Application Software Developers Association), this has now been added to the
634:
Zend technologies is one of the companies that has quoted and mentioned
Arquila and Insight in their press releases. Zend as I am sure you know is the main developer of PHP and has millions of commercial users. The pure fact that they are in dialog and have actually quoted Arquila and it's product
552:
I don't understand how all the packages in the comparison of accounting software do not fall under the same banner as
Insight. I have tried to add it to the comparison of accounting packages article and have asked for reasoning why it was removed. This software is daily replacing many packages on
420:
Knowledge is a directory for all sorts of things. It is supposed to be be an open and 💕. Insight (and/or maybe
Arquila) is a story worthy of being noted, in my opinion, as it is a story of a person imigrating to the UK and starting a business from nothing. It is a small business, and could do
350:
Arquila is a small
Scottish Company. It has been invited to be included in Accountancy project. I should like you to take note of last clause in the last paragraph. I would also like to take exception to some of the lack of professionalism of some of people nominating articles for deletion. I
351:
also hate to bring this up, but it seems to me that some of the people have some sort of axe to grind against business and/or small companies. It really is sad to see that some of you are being so hard on a small company that is trying to help other small businesses, and organizations.
390:
more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
424:
Because a small organisation does not have a lot GHits (I am presuming you meant Google Hits) does not make un-notable. Open for business, being around for a few years, doing something of interest, all seem to me as things that make something
160:
635:
should be a major plus in it's notability. This reference is on the article. Zend and PHP are massive they would not simple have a dialog / be quoting about
Arquila if the company was not note worthy.
304:
121:
447:
Since you wrote "I know about
Arquila, and started this article" I assume that you are the same person as the original author, Hackbinary. The etiquette is to make this clear.
154:
697:; I asked for sources from the author about six months ago and those have still not materialized. I see nothing other than cursory mentions in PR and minor SEO hits.
327:
450:
The hangon tag is intended for use when an article has been tagged for speedy deletion. It isn't used when the article has been sent to a discussion like this one.
711:
406:
and
Knowledge's standard for that must be external sources. Finally, no we aren't professionals, this is a volunteer run website -- all amateurs.--
245:. Because the article is well-written, I won't suggest a speedy, but this company has three Ghits: one Knowledge; the other two Knowledge mirrors.
487:
wiki page and a reference has been provided. BASDA is recognised by the European Commission, the UK Government, the United Nations and the OECD.
553:
that list. The article comes across as explanatory and list it's largest competitor. There is also links to the comparison of packages page.
642:
519:
497:
94:
89:
98:
191:
This is simply an advertisement. Inadequate references and no evidence of notability - plenty other stuff like this out there. Fails
567:
Have removed some elements that refer to the impact of this product on customers, this to ensure does not carry an advert-y message.
434:
282:
281:: Half the article seems to be about the company Arquila Limited, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. The article links to
461:. There is no such evidence in the INSIGHT article. If you can provide some, fine, otherwise the article is likely to be deleted.
593:
523:
377:
373:
81:
59:
617:
17:
175:
608:
enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia then I'm sure no-one would have a problem keeping it. The product would need to have
589:
453:
ghits are not necessarily indicators of notability but they certainly help. Knowledge's guidelines on notability can be read
142:
625:
225:
52:
735:
136:
36:
734:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
285:
where there is no mention of it. As soap goes though, it's not blatant, it lists competitors and everything.--
720:
705:
689:
669:
650:
646:
629:
576:
562:
547:
515:
505:
501:
470:
442:
415:
360:
339:
316:
294:
273:
251:
229:
207:
132:
63:
621:
221:
85:
511:
438:
585:
572:
558:
182:
638:
544:
493:
466:
369:
356:
267:
203:
77:
69:
335:
312:
168:
581:
568:
554:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
259:
per my original deletion nomination back when this article was first created in February. --
148:
411:
290:
536:
462:
431:
BTW, by professialism, I meant politness. There is no need for comments like "God yes..."
365:
352:
260:
199:
716:
710:
In case anyone cares, the creator of the article has just been indefintely blocked for
703:
666:
331:
308:
247:
242:
238:
196:
601:
490:
Please also note the ghits and extensive online coverage of this software product.
115:
680:
605:
454:
407:
286:
192:
698:
459:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
728:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
111:
107:
103:
535:
Advert-y and not notable per extreme lack of GHits. --
167:
220:. Un-notable, no major independent coverage, advert.
305:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
738:). No further edits should be made to this page.
328:list of Software-related deletion discussions
181:
8:
600:If you can supply us with references, from
604:, which demonstrate that this software is
322:
299:
326:: This debate has been included in the
303:: This debate has been included in the
616:sources. Please take the time to read
7:
620:before forming a response. Thanks.
24:
457:. You will see that they require
283:Comparison of accounting software
218:Exactly what wikipedia is not for
402:The key word in the sentence is
679:per all that's been said above
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
721:18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
706:00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
690:10:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
670:03:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
651:17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
630:11:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
577:07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
563:07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
548:03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
471:12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
443:12:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
64:03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
506:19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
416:20:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
361:19:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
340:15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
317:15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
295:08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
274:21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
252:16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
230:16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
208:15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
755:
665:: per all of the deletes.
428:Who removed my hangon??!!
731:Please do not modify it.
717:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
248:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
32:Please do not modify it.
53:Backslash Forwardslash
594:few or no other edits
524:few or no other edits
378:few or no other edits
596:outside this topic.
526:outside this topic.
380:outside this topic.
44:The result was
641:comment added by
622:Dylanfromthenorth
597:
527:
496:comment added by
386:As WP:ORG states:
381:
342:
319:
222:Dylanfromthenorth
746:
733:
701:
653:
618:these guidelines
602:reliable sources
579:
542:
509:
508:
363:
264:
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
34:
754:
753:
749:
748:
747:
745:
744:
743:
742:
736:deletion review
729:
699:
636:
540:
491:
262:
214:God yes, delete
128:
92:
78:Arquila INSIGHT
76:
73:
70:Arquila INSIGHT
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
752:
750:
741:
740:
724:
723:
708:
692:
687:
673:
672:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
612:coverage from
565:
530:
529:
528:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
451:
448:
432:
429:
426:
422:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
344:
343:
320:
297:
276:
254:
232:
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
751:
739:
737:
732:
726:
725:
722:
719:
718:
713:
709:
707:
704:
702:
696:
693:
691:
688:
686:
685:
681:
678:
675:
674:
671:
668:
664:
661:
652:
648:
644:
643:84.69.119.253
640:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
574:
570:
566:
564:
560:
556:
551:
550:
549:
546:
543:
539:
534:
531:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:84.69.119.253
507:
503:
499:
498:84.69.119.253
495:
489:
488:
485:
482:
481:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
399:
398:
397:
388:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
358:
354:
349:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
266:
265:
258:
255:
253:
250:
249:
244:
240:
236:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
730:
727:
715:
712:sockpuppetry
694:
683:
682:
676:
662:
613:
609:
537:
532:
483:
458:
404:demonstrable
403:
347:
323:
300:
278:
269:
268:
261:
256:
246:
234:
213:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
55:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
637:—Preceding
614:independent
610:significant
592:) has made
522:) has made
492:—Preceding
435:217.41.5.36
376:) has made
155:free images
366:Hackbinary
353:Hackbinary
667:Joe Chill
425:noteable.
332:Thryduulf
309:Thryduulf
639:unsigned
590:contribs
520:contribs
494:unsigned
374:contribs
122:View log
606:notable
582:Daemonk
569:Daemonk
555:Daemonk
243:WP:SNOW
239:WP:SOAP
161:WP refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
695:Delete
677:Delete
663:Delete
545:(talk)
533:Delete
408:RDBury
287:RDBury
279:Delete
257:Delete
235:Delete
197:WP:VER
133:Google
99:delete
46:delete
541:cobra
538:Cyber
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
700:Kuru
647:talk
626:talk
586:talk
573:talk
559:talk
516:talk
502:talk
484:KEEP
467:talk
463:andy
455:here
439:talk
412:talk
370:talk
357:talk
348:KEEP
336:talk
324:Note
313:talk
301:Note
291:talk
263:role
241:and
237:per
226:talk
204:talk
200:andy
195:and
193:WP:N
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
60:talk
684:Nja
183:TWL
120:– (
714:.
649:)
628:)
588:•
580:—
575:)
561:)
518:•
510:—
504:)
469:)
441:)
414:)
372:•
364:—
359:)
338:)
330:.
315:)
307:.
293:)
228:)
216:.
206:)
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
48:.
645:(
624:(
584:(
571:(
557:(
514:(
500:(
465:(
437:(
410:(
368:(
355:(
334:(
311:(
289:(
224:(
202:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
58:(
56:/
50:\
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.