From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. j⚛e decker talk 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Jiwa Financials (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

one primary source fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. (2 SPA editors incl creator, looks like COI spam) . Even if passed GNG, what's this notable for? Widefox; talk 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, a highly inappropriate move as there's an open move request, and this AfD. I objected to the move (by one of the two COI editors) and reverted it. Widefox; talk 10:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I found one piece of brief coverage from 2004 of another software item integrating with this package, and it is mentioned in a sector list in Bookkeeping for Dummies. These provide independent basic verification, but do not indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 06:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I wrote the article initially and took care to be factual to avoid COI issues. The lack of notability issue I contest as the article is about a product no less notable than competing products which do have wikipedia articles. Informing the public is an objective of Wikipedia, yes? I think it appropriate then that informing the public of alternate products in the Accounting Software and ERP categories includes the product Jiwa and the publisher, Jiwa Financials. Mikesheen ( talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Mikesheen ( talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a strong argument. As you have a COI, I'm not even going to ask which ones and delete them. Widefox; talk 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Which sources? Do you have two that meet WP:RS ? Widefox; talk 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. j⚛e decker talk 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Jiwa Financials (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

one primary source fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. (2 SPA editors incl creator, looks like COI spam) . Even if passed GNG, what's this notable for? Widefox; talk 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, a highly inappropriate move as there's an open move request, and this AfD. I objected to the move (by one of the two COI editors) and reverted it. Widefox; talk 10:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I found one piece of brief coverage from 2004 of another software item integrating with this package, and it is mentioned in a sector list in Bookkeeping for Dummies. These provide independent basic verification, but do not indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 06:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I wrote the article initially and took care to be factual to avoid COI issues. The lack of notability issue I contest as the article is about a product no less notable than competing products which do have wikipedia articles. Informing the public is an objective of Wikipedia, yes? I think it appropriate then that informing the public of alternate products in the Accounting Software and ERP categories includes the product Jiwa and the publisher, Jiwa Financials. Mikesheen ( talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Mikesheen ( talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a strong argument. As you have a COI, I'm not even going to ask which ones and delete them. Widefox; talk 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Which sources? Do you have two that meet WP:RS ? Widefox; talk 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook