Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arquila INSIGHT


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Arquila INSIGHT

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is simply an advertisement. Inadequate references and no evidence of notability - plenty other stuff like this out there. Fails WP:N and WP:VER andy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * God yes, delete. Exactly what wikipedia is not for. Un-notable, no major independent coverage, advert. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SNOW. Because the article is well-written, I won't suggest a speedy, but this company has three Ghits: one Wikipedia; the other two Wikipedia mirrors. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original deletion nomination back when this article was first created in February. --  role player 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Half the article seems to be about the company Arquila Limited, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. The article links to Comparison of accounting software where there is no mention of it. As soap goes though, it's not blatant, it lists competitors and everything.--RDBury (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP 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 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.   Hackbinary (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC) — Hackbinary (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As WP:ORG states:
 * 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 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.
 * People here don't have it in for small businesses; it's just that they don't want Wikipedia 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, ..."? The key word in the sentence is demonstrable and Wikipedia's standard for that must be external sources. Finally, no we aren't professionals, this is a volunteer run website -- all amateurs.--RDBury (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a directory for all sorts of things. It is supposed to be be an open and free encyclopedia.  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 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 Wikipedia.  I profess no expertise in writing wikipedia articles, or even encyclopedia articles.  I just would like to see an article in Wikipedia 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.
 * 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 noteable.
 * Who removed my hangon??!!
 * BTW, by professialism, I meant politness. There is no need for comments like "God yes..."
 * 217.41.5.36 (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * ghits are not necessarily indicators of notability but they certainly help. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability can be read here. You will see that they require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no such evidence in the INSIGHT article. If you can provide some, fine, otherwise the article is likely to be deleted. andy (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP 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 wiki page and a reference has been provided. BASDA is recognised by the European Commission, the UK Government, the United Nations and the OECD.
 * Please also note the ghits and extensive online coverage of this software product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.119.253 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC) — 84.69.119.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Advert-y and not notable per extreme lack of GHits. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 that list. The article comes across as explanatory and list it's largest competitor. There is also links to the comparison of packages page.Daemonk (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have removed some elements that refer to the impact of this product on customers, this to ensure does not carry an advert-y message.Daemonk (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — Daemonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you can supply us with references, from reliable sources, which demonstrate that this software is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia then I'm sure no-one would have a problem keeping it. The product would need to have significant coverage from independent sources. Please take the time to read these guidelines before forming a response. Thanks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.119.253 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per all of the deletes. Joe Chill 03:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per all that's been said above Nja 247 10:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; 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.   Kuru  talk  00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In case anyone cares, the creator of the article has just been indefintely blocked for sockpuppetry. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:38, 14 September 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.