Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubit Accounting

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. Fails WP:GNG -Scottywong | spout _ 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubit Accounting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not appear to be notable as per WP:N. TOW talk 02:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles has no independent sources which give significant coverage, and I could not find any online. Article fails Wikipedia precedent on software notability. NJ Wine (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Added references are largely self-published. No reliable 3rd party source material can be found. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response

But there are links in the article itself? - And surely the notability is evident from the updated/amended content itself? - If I am wrong please take the time to explain it in plain simple language. Notability: The total source code consists of millions of lines of code. Just the initial core module: http://www.ohloh.net/p/Accounting-123 - estimated project cost $8,429,584 and that is only 10% of the source code. Surely that is significant or even notable? (btw - accounting-123 = cubit) If my article entry is not written well enough, please help me with it? or if I am wrong, I can accept that but explain it to me so I can understand it :)

External links

more:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You need to read WP:N the number of lines of code or cost of writing it is nothing to do with notability from the wikipedia perspective. Wikpedia's concept of notability is using what others have written to indicate that the world has taken note, not to set some arbitary metric. The general notability guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The links you give above are, of the ones I've read (which was those which were accessible), are the software's own site (so not independent), press-release (or as good as i.e. largely just a reproduction of what the company said) (so not independent) or directory style listings where anyone can submit stuff and it get's listed (so not reliable, nor non-trivial) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2012 (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.