285:. The main criterion for that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while most of the sources here are press releases, which are not "independent of the subject". Has the company gotten coverage in newspapers, trade papers? CNet, PCWeek, Wired, The CPA Technology Advisor, CPA magazine, any of the other dozen or hundred computer or accounting magazines that exist? There is one exception,
781:. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't look into all company-links (sorry for that). As for the review: not every review indicates notability. I could publish an independent online-magazine (or even material magazine) and give a review, and the reviewee wouldn't automatically become notable. My objection was exactly this: is the source of the review notable enough so that his reviews indicate notability? I.e, is it
31:
353:*GRuban - Thanks for noting about the article in the paper and that you noted that you required at least one more. You even mentioned one of the trade magazines, The CPA Technology Advisor, who did a complete independent study on Emochila, hard printed and unsolicited in their December 2006 Trade Magazine. This is listed in the references of the Emochila Wiki Article (
521:
Tech
Advisor, and it has published articles on Emochila not based on their payment for ad space but based on their independent research. It's a solid industry mag. Sure, some of the Press Coverage are press releases. Many articles are such. However, they meet the required 2 non-trivial, unrelated articles.
520:
I happen to think the article should stay. I'm a CPA in
Washington state (see www.donrodman.com) who utilized this article a while back to determine this firm's merit in the field. I do not think the article is advertising based, nor do I feel that it's unreliable. I happen to subscribe to the CPA
184:
I've read this article fully. It contains relevant content, is footnoted with approximately 6 sites, and does not appear to be written maliciously, falsely, or without merit. I don't understand why it would be deleted. The main reason for deletion claims that the company does not provide sources to
452:
my previous comment here, "The AfD notice has been removed from this honking load of spam." I'll expand on that comment by saying that this article should be deleted for being spam, and the company itself is not notable. The alleged sources are press releases or otherwise created by the company or
758:
means, that multiple independent reliable sources have "taken note" of the company, written non-trivial articles about it. That's really all that can be expected. If this were a singer, we'd accept articles in an independent music journal, since this is an accounting software company, we need to
229:
I agree with cbrubaker. I am a CPA doing research on using this company, and I've read the entire thing. If there is a question about notoriety, they are the prime company used by everyone in my field for website devleopment, and that means the entire private-practice certified public accountant
753:
Reference number 5 is displayed on the company website, but is pretty clearly a scan of an independent newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that it's a fake? I doubt it. Number 4 is a non-trivial review by an independent magazine - "can you show that having a review at this site indicates
593:, which specifically says " "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."--
499:
I agree with 66.57.189.230: the references given are not relevant to this discussion, and the "Press
Coverage" links are press releases and/or blatant advertisements and/or from non-reliable sources. Plus, half of the article reads like an ad.
288:, which is a real article in a real paper, why this is only "weak", but "multiple", meaning more than one, are preferred to show that the company is notable. Find one more article like that, and I'll change to keep. --
814:
seems to be very proud of receiving an award from them. Reuters is one of the top N news agencies in the world, for a very small N, so I doubt they would be proud of receiving an award from just anybody.
728:"Greg asks Justin Curzi from eMochila what visitors will hear about when they make their way to the eMochila booth during the guided tour." - obviously not an independent source, hence not reliable
363:
Here is another one provided by the
Ecommerce Journal which is not a press release, and penned by an independent source. I am going to add this to the reference pages as we speak.
153:
843:
I've been reading since the article was requested for reinstatement on 17 Aug. The above logic and research looks correct. Articles noted look non-trivial.
40:
850:
259:
237:
454:
916:
807:
which isn't great, but says it was around since 1991, so it's at least not a fly-by-night journal. More important, I found this:
548:
263:
219:
544:
215:
185:
assert notability. What else could you need? Partnership affiliations from at least 4 major players, and audio at conventions?
17:
616:
NOTE: I recently edited this page in order to help readability and formatting. NO content was changed or removed in any way.
803:
I'm not an accountant, but from digging around, it looks like a respected source in the industry. We have an article on it,
626:
168:
120:
115:
124:
898:
255:
241:
107:
85:
65:
46:
897:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
874:
854:
657:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
739:
So no, the article does not cite any reliable sources which indicate the notability of the subject. Delete.
458:
804:
481:
540:
526:
600:
341:
808:
846:
755:
590:
552:
446:
424:
282:
267:
251:
233:
81:
878:
870:
858:
824:
794:
768:
748:
680:
661:
653:
634:
605:
576:
530:
509:
486:
462:
436:
411:
377:
346:
320:
297:
245:
211:
194:
190:
177:
89:
354:
790:
744:
572:
505:
404:
373:
623:
478:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
820:
764:
594:
432:
335:
293:
536:
522:
331:
207:
186:
910:
786:
740:
676:
568:
501:
397:
369:
334:
removed the AfD notice on the article on August 7. I have added the notice back in.--
111:
77:
782:
649:
617:
313:
286:
161:
160:
Author declined prod. Company that does not provide sources to assert notability.
141:
472:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
391:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
307:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
816:
760:
645:
428:
289:
705:
a review - can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?
423:
per additional coverage referenced above. 2 non-trivial unrelated sources meet
652:. Also, the above comment by donrodman was his first edit. A bit suspiscious.
671:
103:
95:
811:
669:
sufficient references, and they don't seem to be all press releases.
689:
It might seem so at first, but have a closer look at the references:
759:
accept articles in an independent accounting software journal. --
891:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
725:
advertisement/press release (?) or a partner company - see above
281:. It is a well written short article, but the firm doesn't meet
230:
industry. I think this article is a good reference tool for us.
355:
http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1016
25:
734:
read the text - this is definitely not an independent source!
722:
press release of a partner company - definitely not a RS
869:
I have struck the comments by socks and blocked users.
449:
148:
137:
133:
129:
696:
a BBB Reliability Report - doesn't indicate notability
477:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
396:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
312:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
702:from company website - not a reliable source (RS)
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
901:). No further edits should be made to this page.
589:Press releases do not meet the requirements of
8:
555:comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
270:comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
716:and if you look at the press coverage:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
7:
551:outside this topic. The preceding
266:outside this topic. The preceding
24:
754:notability?" - well, that's what
41:deletion review on 2008 August 17
567:Which of the links do you mean?
29:
719:from company website - not a RS
711:from company website - not a RS
708:from company website - not a RS
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
357:) and should suffice, right?
879:05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
859:19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
825:16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
795:14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
769:13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
749:11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
731:press release - hardly a RS
681:09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
662:00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
635:23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
606:22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
577:22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
531:22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
510:22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
487:21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
463:19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
437:18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
412:12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
378:16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
347:23:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
321:22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
90:05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
933:
298:18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
246:17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
195:13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
178:21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
82:--Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
917:Pages at deletion review
894:Please do not modify it.
699:irrelevant to notability
61:Please do not modify it.
805:CPA Technology Advisor
549:few or no other edits
264:few or no other edits
220:few or no other edits
644:. The article fails
642:Delete and checkuser
447:user:190.188.206.202
425:Knowledge:Notability
283:Knowledge:Notability
222:outside this topic.
78:(non-admin closure)
73:The result was
861:
849:comment added by
638:
556:
489:
484:
414:
323:
271:
248:
236:comment added by
223:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
924:
896:
844:
620:
614:
603:
597:
534:
482:
476:
474:
408:
401:
395:
393:
344:
338:
318:
311:
309:
249:
231:
205:
173:
164:
151:
145:
127:
63:
33:
32:
26:
932:
931:
927:
926:
925:
923:
922:
921:
907:
906:
905:
899:deletion review
892:
851:201.216.246.229
631:
618:
601:
595:
470:
406:
399:
389:
342:
336:
314:
305:
252:190.188.206.202
238:190.188.206.202
175:
169:
162:
147:
118:
102:
99:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
930:
928:
920:
919:
909:
908:
904:
903:
886:
884:
883:
882:
881:
864:
863:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
798:
797:
772:
771:
737:
736:
735:
732:
729:
726:
723:
720:
714:
713:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
691:
690:
684:
683:
664:
639:
627:
611:
610:
609:
608:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
560:
559:
513:
512:
491:
490:
475:
467:
466:
465:
453:its officers.
440:
439:
416:
415:
394:
386:
384:
365:
364:
350:
349:
332:User:Cbrubaker
325:
324:
310:
302:
301:
300:
274:
200:
199:
167:
158:
157:
98:
93:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
929:
918:
915:
914:
912:
902:
900:
895:
889:
888:
887:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
862:
860:
856:
852:
848:
842:
838:
837:
826:
822:
818:
813:
809:
806:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
757:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
717:
715:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
694:
693:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
682:
678:
674:
673:
668:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
640:
637:
636:
632:
630:
624:
621:
613:
612:
607:
604:
598:
592:
591:WP:Notability
588:
587:
586:
585:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
532:
528:
524:
519:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
498:
497:
493:
492:
488:
485:
480:
473:
469:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:66.57.189.230
451:
448:
445:
442:
441:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
413:
410:
409:
403:
402:
392:
388:
387:
385:
382:
381:
379:
375:
371:
366:
362:
361:
359:
358:
356:
348:
345:
339:
333:
330:
327:
326:
322:
319:
317:
308:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
280:
279:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
247:
243:
239:
235:
227:
226:
225:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
202:
198:
196:
192:
188:
182:
181:
180:
179:
174:
172:
165:
155:
150:
143:
139:
135:
131:
126:
122:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
100:
97:
94:
92:
91:
87:
83:
79:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
893:
890:
885:
840:
839:
778:
777:Changing to
670:
666:
641:
628:
615:
517:
516:
495:
494:
479:PeterSymonds
471:
443:
420:
419:Changing to
405:
398:
390:
383:
368:
367:
360:
352:
351:
328:
315:
306:
277:
276:
232:— Preceding
228:
204:
203:
201:
183:
170:
159:
75:No consensus
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
845:—Preceding
596:Fabrictramp
547:) has made
337:Fabrictramp
278:Weak delete
262:) has made
218:) has made
756:notability
602:talk to me
343:talk to me
810:in which
779:weak keep
537:donrodman
533:donrodman
523:Donrodman
208:Cbrubaker
197:cbrubaker
187:Cbrubaker
911:Category
847:unsigned
787:Adrianwn
783:reliable
741:Adrianwn
569:Adrianwn
553:unsigned
545:contribs
502:Adrianwn
380:kwintern
370:Kwintern
268:unsigned
260:contribs
234:unsigned
216:contribs
154:View log
104:Emochila
96:Emochila
871:Undeath
812:Reuters
654:Undeath
629:Contrib
619:Rwiggum
450:removed
329:Comment
316:JForget
171:Contrib
163:Rwiggum
121:protect
116:history
817:GRuban
761:GRuban
496:Delete
483:(talk)
444:Delete
429:GRuban
290:GRuban
149:delete
125:delete
650:WP:RS
400:Jamie
152:) – (
142:views
134:watch
130:links
16:<
875:talk
855:talk
841:Keep
821:talk
791:talk
765:talk
745:talk
677:talk
667:Keep
658:talk
648:and
646:WP:N
573:talk
541:talk
527:talk
518:Keep
506:talk
459:talk
433:talk
427:. --
421:Keep
374:talk
294:talk
256:talk
242:talk
212:talk
191:talk
138:logs
112:talk
108:edit
86:talk
672:DGG
407:S93
80:.
913::
877:)
857:)
823:)
815:--
793:)
785:?
767:)
747:)
679:)
660:)
633:)
599:|
575:)
543:•
535:—
529:)
508:)
461:)
435:)
376:)
340:|
296:)
258:•
250:—
244:)
214:•
206:—
193:)
176:)
166:(/
140:|
136:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
88:)
43:.
873:(
853:(
819:(
789:(
763:(
743:(
675:(
656:(
625:/
622:(
571:(
557:.
539:(
525:(
504:(
457:(
431:(
372:(
292:(
272:.
254:(
240:(
210:(
189:(
156:)
146:(
144:)
106:(
84:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.