Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Retail Solution


 * 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. Insufficient evidence of notability. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Retail Solution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

delete as non-notable software, promotional Deunanknute (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The references given are to the vendor's own website and routine business listings. I can't find any sign of notability for this software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete our entry The retail solution point of sale has been around for over 22 years. We have over 5000 users worldwide. We've added some additional references. Please let us know what else you need to show notability.
 * "Our"? Please see Wikipedia's notes on conflicts of interest. It's against policy to use Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The first reference you added, to canadapos.com, is a bad link. I found the product here, which is a sales listing. The second, to pos.com, is a listing placed by you with your own language from the Northwest Network Solutions website. The third, to powertasking.com, contains an embedded video from your own YouTube channel. The reference in WhitePages.com is, well, your own business listing. Notability is generally established through multiple reliable sources with substantial independent coverage of the subject. The general idea is to cover topics here that have already achieved some measure of demonstrable note in the world. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't doubt the software exists, but there is no evidence of satisfying the General notability guideline. When all references are merely directory links that indicate existence, regurgitated PR pieces ("The Retail Solution is simply the best value in POS software on the market today."), and the companies own website, there is no reason this should have an article beyond increasing visibility to customers and investors. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete our entry. Links to The Retail Solution from other sources: http://www.bobsroswellvacuum.com Bob's Roswell Vacuum]Expressions in GlassPowertasking Solutions GroupBasel Service Boutique & TimepiecesKnoxville's Premier Headshop


 * Those are all customers of yours. They are not independent sources. Please see WP:GNG for notability guidelines as indicated above. Deunanknute (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I know, but they are also current businesses that are willing to put our link on their website.


 * I'm Tim Clark, I wrote The Retail Solution over 22 years ago first as a DOS-based program then again for Windows. I made SOMETHING from NOTHING and I’d like to think the over 5000 users that refer to "The Retail Solution" as a noun, make it notable. Anything I could do to convince you of that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimC007 (talk • contribs)


 * you need independent reviews from sources that are not affiliated with you
 * ever had an article in any of the retail trade mags? CS News, Stores, QSR magazine?
 * newspaper articles talking about your business/software?
 * something from somebody who didn't have something to gain from you?
 * Deunanknute (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We've had LOTS of reviews over the years, but they were printed, the company went out of business and/or the URL has been deleted. It seems like most companies now require some kind of monetary investment before reviewing a product. We are working on this, please give us a little time.


 * In our 22 year history, we've done virtually no advertising! Word-of-mouth is how customers learned about “The Retail Solution”.  Isn’t that the essence of notability?


 * Google uses a very sophisticated search routine that includes site relevance and popularity. In a Google search I just performed, "The Retail Solution" was the FIRST listing after the paid ads. Isn’t relevance and popularity another word for notability?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimC007 (talk • contribs)


 * Have you clicked any of the links you've been given to the explanations of Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, including the general guidelines as well as guidelines applicable to products? Among them you won't find "has been able to get new business through word-of-mouth" or "your company's website appears near the top of a Google search for the name of your company". (Google's rankings aren't based on whether the websites containing links to your site meet Wikipedia's criteria for establishing notability.) If there have been applicable reviews, there'd need to be evidence of them. If "monetary investment" amounts to "they'll review us if we pay them", then such reviews aren't independent, they're paid placements. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I reviewed the page, and it looks like most of the content on the page is promotional. In addition, a google search for "northwest network solutions the retail solution" turns up the manual and the facebook page for the company before any non-promotional site other than a complaint to the BBB or the Wikipedia page in question, which, to me, is a definite indication of non-notability. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, our main web page is promotional. Does the fact that we have a website that is promoting our product make it any less noteworthy? How is that different than the HUNDREDS of other software applications currently listed on Wikipedia?


 * I think a three-year old complaint with the Better Business Bureau actually shows notability. I also think that any 22-year old software company is going to have a few customer "issues". Because I'm extremely proud of our product and company I would like to also point out the same link shows the issue was closed and there have been ZERO complaints in the last 12 months.


 * We're not trying to have "Northwest Network Solutions The Retail Solution" listed on Wikipedia. With over 5,000 user worldwide, I’m simply trying to debate that "The Retail Solution" is an actual noteworthy "THING".


 * I did find a few additional non-customer/independent older links: Solutions/ Capterra Wikigrain Point of Sale Software Buyers Guide Hotfrog Akama ITQlick — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomC007 (talk • contribs)


 * Would you please sign your own posts as I previously posted a note about on your user talk page?
 * You're continuing to make up your own definitions of notability, apparently in preference to studying the sources you've been given to see how notability is actually assessed on Wikipedia. That isn't likely to get you very far.
 * At least four of your new links are to business directory listings that were presumably placed by you.
 * Capterra hosts paid vendor-submitted listings (see ), so I'm skeptical of your claim as to the independence of the product's listing there.
 * Wikigrain is a wiki, not a reliable source. In this particular case, the page is a machine-generated copy of the Wikipedia article itself. It says so at the bottom of the page.
 * Your third link is broken.
 * HotFrog, like Capterra, is an ad placement site.
 * Akama is another vendor-registration business directory. The description is from your website.
 * ITQlick seems to be a Capterra clone. They both have very similar taglines that end in the same clause: "Every month, [Capterra/we] help(s) [thousands of businesses & nonprofits/software buyers] [find the software/choose the right tools for their organization] that will allow them to improve, grow, and succeed."
 * If the four business listings among your links really were placed by you, then you've shown extremely bad faith in presenting them as independent. But even if a kind benefactor is placing paid listings for your business on these websites outside of your control, these don't meet the requirement for substantial coverage.
 * —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not signing my post. I'm still learning how to use this site.
 * I give you my word I had NOTHING to do with the content of the previous links I posted. I got the idea to search on "Northwest Network Solutions The Retail Solution" from user "wilsonp".  Please try it yourself, you will also see the listings. FYI: The broken link had an extra backspace at the end and I fixed it. TimC007 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are asking me to try searching for them myself. I'm not questioning that they exist and that search engines can find them. It was through my own search that I found no independent reliable sources as opposed to listings like these on websites where the products that appear are there because their vendors submitted them for inclusion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The third link starts off with "Summary of Retail Solution Deluxe 11.0 software from Northwest Network Solutions, Inc." That sure makes it seem like you provided it in some way or another. As it is from a site that seems to be a reviewed list of all pos softwares, (see the home page) this makes it questionable about how much your software's inclusion proves notability. Iwilsonp (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was only trying to show using a different search is how I “magically” found some more links. If I was in your shoes I would have been suspicious too. It’s easy to place content on websites but it was my thought it would be almost impossible to have all six sites be so highly listed on all major search engines, over night.


 * Please don’t make us start this whole Wikipedia process over again. We currently have over 5000 users worldwide that refer to “The Retail Solution” as a thing. We are actively searching for a few non-paid, credible, reviewers of point-of-sale software. We just need a little time. TimC007 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "This whole process" takes two minutes, if you copy the wikicode to your own computer and save it there until you have sources to back it up, and then paste them back into a fresh copy of the article. There isn't anything significant about how when you search for the name of your business, the top hits are for your business. What else would they be for? It means that your website, unlike any other, is full of pages that have the words "the retail solution" all over them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I did another Google search for: "The Retail Solution" -www.nwns.com which finds all pages having the phrase "The Retail Solution" that do not have the text www.nwns.com which would be a link to your website. The first result I get is this, which has nothing to do with your product. The next result is how to enable a filter for a different site called the "Retail Solution Site". The third, as well as the fourth, are about a product from Bank of America. Only on the fifth listing do I get something about your product, here, which is a promotional page. Iwilsonp (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Google must be different from place to place. A search for "The Retail Solution" is STILL the FIRST non-ad link here in the Portland, Oregon USA area.
 * You forgot to add the -www.nwns.com which I put in to weed out results that were from (or linked to) your site. When I input The Retail Solution into my browser I turn up exactly that too. What I really searched for was this exact string: "The Retail Solution" -www.nwns.com (just copy and paste it into your browser) Iwilsonp (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry "Iwilsonp"... Just after posting my comment, I did realize that. (Cool feature!) TimC007 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow... That fifth link you found was version 9.0, it's at least 10 years old! TimC007 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (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.