Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeAgent (software)

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 keep, with thanks to User:Qwertyus for incorporating the sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreeAgent (software)

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

Notability not established. I could find a couple of reviews ([1], [2], [3]) but, per WP:NSOFT, "[r]eviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability" and none is more than a routine review of yet another accounting package. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to challenge that notability of this product is not established. Here are some significant articles from leading global news sources from the past two years: [4], [5], [6], [7]

Lylo (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Lylo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New references are not significant coverage, although the BBC article is very close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I'm struggling to understand why these are "very close" but still not acceptable? This seems arbitrary and subjective, and hence insubstantial to warrant the deletion of this page. The clear fact of the matter here is that there is clear coverage from BBC, TechCrunch, Wall Street Journal and The Guardian about this business to demonstrate it's relevance. Several smaller competitors of this product have Wikipedia pages with what I would consider less substantial coverage. FreeAgent is the UK market-leading SaaS provider of accounting software. --Lylo (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind to weak keep after adding material based on the sources found by Lylo (with the note that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:04, 10 January 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.