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The result was nomination withdrawn. Looks like I've got a minority viewpoint on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZipBooks[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software, written by a COI editor. The article was declined at AfC, then moved to mainspace by Nihonjoe despite a fairly damning critique of the article on the talk page. Although the article has references, most (if not all) of them are press releases or self-published content. A search for other sources returns pretty much the same thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI drafter here. :) I can attest to the objectivity of the references. There are no press releases or self-published content in references in 1 - 6 or 12. The self-posted listings of ZipBooks integration pages were removed by this editor but added back by a different editor. I'm not sure the claims against the references bear up against closer scrutiny. For example, the WSJ clearly meets to notability standard. The second reference is n in a local newspaper. The third reference is a statement issued by the State of Utah Governor's Office. The 4 - 6 references are reporters for tech or accounting news and aren't advertorials. I think if you read the story it's pretty clear that these reporters are in some instances skeptics about the need for another accounting software program. Reference 12 is a review from PC Mag which also is pretty clear we wouldn't pay for. @Nihonjoe:Thoughts on the references mentioned? JustaZBguy (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nihonjoe's analysis on the talk page clearly indicates problematic sources, but also clearly shows significant coverage by multiple sources that are independent of the subject, including the wsj.com reference behind a paywall (to which I have access, and it's a good source). The question is, should the article be about the company or the software? It is possible for the software to be notable (by virtue of independent reviews) without the company being notable. If the software is notable, the article could easily be re-cast to be about that. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I showed on Talk:ZipBooks, the article very clearly meets WP:N and WP:V, so there is no valid reason for deletion. The article was completely rewritten by me before it was moved, so the "damning critique" is irrelevant. I agree with Anachronist regarding the need to perhaps make the article about the software or the company instead of both. Right now, they are really pretty much the same thing as they only have this one software as far as I can tell. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333: Also, if the "damning critique" was what I wrote on Talk:ZipBooks, that was written by me before I rewrote the article to remove all the problems. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (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.