Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel Systems

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. The consensus is that although most of the sources appear to be non-reliable/non-neutral, there is at least one which is adequate. This closure is without prejudice against a re-nomination after a short time (at least a week) is given to improve the article with more usable sourcing. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Systems

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

There is nothing notable regarding the company everything that is referenced comes from their own website itself. All given awards are easy to achieve and given to many other companies as well. Jackandrews (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have a strong opinion on this article, but it has been around for four and a half years. I do think the fact that they implemented the first POS system for restaurants is significant, as that is all you see in restaurants now. The nominator is a new user to Wikipedia whose only contribution to this encyclopedia is this nomination. I'm curious as to the nominator's agenda. Seems a little suspicious. Looks like a duck to me MsFionnuala (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See MsFionnuala's point about Looks like a duck to me. Plus, the article is a decent sized article with much interesting content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.78.136 (talk • contribs)

Before writing this didn't you pause to think whether you look just as duck-like as the nominator? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What matters here is whether this company has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not any assumption about the motives of the nominator. The sources in the article are all either press releases or are written by representatives of Squirrel Systems, and I have been unable to find any other independent sources with as much as a full sentence about it. I would expect any notable Western software company operating in this century to have such coverage available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On one hand, I suppose that's true; on the other hand, my "Duck" argument is grounded in policy... see WP:AVOIDCOI, item 2. I understand what you're saying, though. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another policy that you should take into account is the one on assumption of good faith. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that Jackandrews has a conflict of interest. A more likely explanation is that he was editing unregistered, but, since unregistered editors can't create deletion discussions, has now registered. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm kind of surprised to say that you see no reason to make that assumption, given the fact that Jackandrews blanked the page in question without explanation, a blanking which you yourself reverted. I think the "more likely explanation" idea goes out the window there. Still looks like a Duck to me. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Significant coverage: [1]
Paywalled sources: [2], [3], [4]
Linux Journal: [5]
Computer Dealer News: [6]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Straits Times source looks good, but the Linux Journal article is written by an employee of Squirrel Systems (the use of the first person is a clear giveaway) and the other sources are pretty obviously straight copies of press releases. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough information provided to see that the company is notable enough for its own article Ducknish (talk) 21:02, 25 July 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.