Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinfield


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Twinfield


Does not meet WP:Corp. Not notable. Ad. Sleepyhead 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. This includes "Twinfield currently claims to be the no. 1 in online accounting in Europe and the company states that it has 20,000 subscribers in 20 countries." (emphasis mine). So tagged. MER-C 13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Per above comments. Chris Kreider 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is no more than a stub, and the claims should be investigated, but Twinfield is an up and coming online accounting package that has received press in IT and Financial circles. IT Week, one of the UK's premier IT newspapers, did an article on it in their print issue a few months ago, and they have an online article in which it is mentioned on more than one occasion. The Irish Internet Association ran an article on it. It has been mentioned on SME Blog, a well known site for help for small and medium businesses. Financial Director, the UK's leading magazine for, well, Financial Directors in Industry has talked about it several times. It has started to be common enough that some accounting and financial positions being advertised are asking for Twinfield experience (not many, but it is happening). I confess the article as it stands needs work, a lot of work, but the company and software is notable. Ben W Bell   talk  15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not like other booster/vanity/advertising pages, but the claim is unverified and it lacks the information of a proper corp page. If the claim was properly sourced or removed and the page re-done to approximating the standard, I'd support retention. Robovski 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've kinda rewrote the article to be based more on the software package than the corporation (as the corp is callled Twinfield International). I'm never very good with these kind of articles, so if someone could look over it. I've also added one of the references shown above. Ben W Bell   talk  07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete -- NN, NPOV. Pete Fenelon 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article needs a tidy I agree but it's not non-notable. Several references can be found stating it's the leading online financial accounting solution in Europe with currently up to 20,000 (depending on source and date of source) subscribers. If these are true, and they are mentioned in several different sources including many prestigious titles in the industry area, how can it be non-notable? Just because you haven't heard of something or know nothing about it doesn't mean it's non-notable. I knew practically nothing about the product, other than it existed, but have done some searching and it is definitely notable. Ben W Bell   talk  07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - may be notable but article reads like an advertisement. If it had some serious cleanup then it could stay, otherwise, send it the way of the spam.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep , it definitely asserts notability, and the sources seem to verify that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * delete without prejudice, the articles only sources are a blog, the website of the company, and a press release. I'd have no problem with a well-sourced article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Quick comment, just because the website SME Blog happens to have the word blog in its title doesn't automatically put it in the same league as other "blogs", it's actually a professional Small and Medium Enterprise orientated news and resource site that happens to use the word blog as it is more modern. In fact the site has won a pretigious award, Accountancy Age awarded it "Best use of internet" for it's benefits to the SME community. Just because it contains the word blog doesn't immediately dismiss it as a valid source. I would post many more supporting references but unfortunately the articles from IT Week, the ones in various accountancy and financial magazines and such only appeared in paper format, not something that can be linked from here. Ben W Bell   talk  07:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick comment: if I understand correctly, you may cite offline sources on Wikipedia to support claims on the article. Just use an appropriate template, such as cite.  The key here is verifiability, not whether it is actually verified by individual editors.  Please add them in asap.  --Pkchan 11:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would love to, unfortunately as of last week I'm now unemployed (redundancy, was quite happy about it) and as a result no longer have access to the back issues of these magazines that I once had. If someone else can supply them then we'd all be greatful. Ben W Bell   talk  17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ben W. Bell. SME Blog isn't really a blog as noted, Accountancy Age repeatedly plugs Twinfield and others as the death-knell of the spreadsheet and the Next Big Thing. Company won an award from the Ministerie van Economische Zaken. All in all, seems a notable enough ASP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability established by mentions by outside sources and award by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.  --Pkchan 11:29, 19 November 2006 (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.