Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill4Time


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill4Time

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company. Reliability of most cited sources doesn't look convincing and some pages have only passing mentions of the company. KFP (contact | edits) 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Yet another web-based time tracking and billing software.  References are to lists of similar products, letting you know how crowded the field is.  -50 notability points for those words which no one must speak aloud. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page has been edited to include more reliable sources: one from the American Bar Association, and another from LexisNexis . --Marjoian (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't have a subject-specific consensus on software packages. So I looked at the sources to see if the software has been noticed beyond routine indiscriminate kinds of attention that any software gets (WP:NOT), or whether there has been significant WP:GNG coverage not excluded by the notability guideline. There are 7 cites to review in the article:


 * Lexisnexis - user asks columnist to write about billing software, columnist writes and gives mention to 3 packages described as "A few of the more well known online billing products". Not really showing any significant attention beyond routine for niche software.
 * American Bar - a comparison table of features, not an article. Very likely indiscriminate, as such bodies when listing possible software for member comparison tend to avoid showing a prteference, the norm is to list all software and let the reader take it from there.
 * 15 online billing tools - indiscriminate coverage of software in field.
 * App database - indiscriminate site, covers/reviews most/all apps.
 * Oregon state bar - similar to Lexisnexis and American Bar - article on legal software, which lists a section "What’s Available for Lawyers", no real evidence of notice beyond "one of several listed legal softwares".
 * Computer Shopper - unreliable source for product reviews/notice.
 * Mac Apps - another apps listing site with "sampling of some of the apps available online". Indiscriminate again.
 * The problem with almost all of these is that when you look carefully, there is no evidence of significant notice and coverage in the sense we mean it. For example, the attention given in editorials is "one of many". By way of example, there are no awards, no "top  packages", no real evidence of significant notice (much less notice focusing on the topic itself), really nothing at all to show that it is noticed beyond routine coverage as "one of the packages available for people who want to do online legal billing". 3 of them are in effect software sales sites (1 unreliable), 3 are "list of some software available" posts, and 1 is an indiscriminate comparison table of features. Also bear in mind WP:SPIP. It would get a mention in List of legal software but so far I'm not seeing evidence of actual notice beyond that. FT2 (Talk 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that Bill4Time is included with other similar software refects the unbiased angle of the writer. It is true that "15 Online Billing Tools" and "Computer Shopper" are not reliable enough sources (and those should be removed), but the fact that it's listed and explained in ABA, LexisNexis, the Oregon State Bar and the WebCPA should argue for it's notablility. It is more than mentioned in passing or in a simple list, but rather explained and reviewed. The disclaimer mentioned in these articles wherein the author only showcases *some* software companies, gives acknowledgement of the current growth rate of technology development. None of them claim to provide a comprehensive list because the list is never updated once it is published. Marjoian (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction for the sake of clarity in reference to "the list is never updated once it is published." Some lists, such as the one from the ABA, is indeed updated periodically, but it also states the time of its last revision to also acknowledge the existing growth of technology development. Marjoian (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 views stated by same user - struck out the "keep" part. FT2 (Talk 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Leaning to inclusion in this case. The software company seems to have a modest, yet significant impact on the cloud/web based software world.  It is part of a new group of software products whose notability guidelines should be viewed through a more forgiving lens.  I vote to give the article more time to reinforce notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjonish (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — Bjonish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. FT2 (Talk 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One of our inclusion criterion is that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Far from being "new", online time billing software (remote accessible or otherwise) is a mature market that has been round many years and this specific product has been round at least 5 (the cite you added is from 2008, the company and product has existed since 2006 and there are hints on Google that the product existed before then ). Whether new or not, if the needed coverage does not exist for an article like this, then we don't keep the article on the (uncertain) hope that it does in future.


 * Also worth considering, if it has had a "significant impact" (modest or otherwise) in the market or the world, then this is demonstrated by independent significant coverage, but evidence (so far as any exists) is extremely weak. FT2 (Talk 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per FT2's excellent analysis. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2011 (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.