Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emochila (2nd nomination)

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 CPA Site Solutions, and keep Emochila. The overall consensus in this AfD seems to conclude that Emochila has received sufficient coverage to warrant an article under WP:CORP, while CPA Site Solutions have not received sufficient substantial, reliable-source coverage for the same to apply. While it did indeed make sense for both to be considered together to a point, most participants acknowledged that the notability of the two are not the same, and are not linked. ~ mazca ^talk 13:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila and CPA Site Solutions

Emochila was previously kept based on a closure as no consensus (see earlier debate) after an AFD plagued with sock votes and irregulatiries. While at first glance, this appears to be a well-referenced article, nearly all of the references are to materials that originate with the company itself. Some have promising names ("Company WhoIS") but link to the company's own web site. One links to a business partner, hardly a neutral source. Another links to the Better Business Bureau, who rely heavily on self-reporting. One is a press release. Three appear to be independent, published sources: of these, one has nothing to do with the topic, the other (the "E-Commerce Journal") appears to be a press release republished without editorial oversight or fact checking, and the third (from a magazine called CPA Technology Advisor) is a brief, independent review.

This article came to my attention after I speedied CPA Site Solutions. That article's author pointed out that Emochila is a competitor and has been using the fact that they have an article at Wikipedia while CPA Site Solutions does not as a marketing advantage. Upon reviewing both articles, this appears to me to be manifestly unfair: The most solid reference for Emochila is the link to CPA Technology Advisor, which provides comparable coverage for CPA Site Solutions. It appears to me that someone adept at manipulating Wikipedia process has been hard at work to be sure that the Emochila article was kept last time around. I believe that neither article should be kept, but out of fairness, I believe that if we keep one, we should keep both.

I have undeleted CPA Site Solutions to include it in this AFD.

There is also relevant commentary at my talk page which I would encourage other Wikipedians to review prior to commenting. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Frankly, I don't believe that both stay or both go. One can be notable while the other is not. And I would certainly express my opinion if that were the case. Fairness is not relevant. If a firm's clients are stupid enough to think that a WP article is significant in choosing a supplier, then they should lose their CPA licenses. And you can print that in the Technology Review. That said, neither firm can demonstrate that they are notable. The references offer nothing in this regard. Republished press releases are meaningless and fail WP:RS. A small blurb in an obscure trade publication would be something if it were accompanied by other independent sources. Its not. I looked through Google News for all dates and found one mention of E Mochila. The CPA Technology Review. That doesn't cut it. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The E-Zine in question is the CPA Technology Advisor, To my knowledge there is no such publication as the "CPA Technology Review".

Response-not a vote Poster of debated article- Characterization of the CPA Technology Advisor publication as "obscure" is unfair. While it is certainly Obscure from a layman's perspective (just about any trade journal is) it is highly respected in the Accounting field. Also, characterization of the coverage of these companies as a "small blurb" is completely erroneous. Both of these firms have received in-depth full reviews from this publication on more than one occasion (from multiple authors). I agree, people searching for vendors on WP is foolish but that does not change the fact that it is being done, and that it is creating measurable and quantifiable financial losses for small businesses. Like it or not, WP now has formidable brand power and most consumers are going to interpret a WP listing as an endorsement to some degree or another. If consumers weren't prone to this type of obtuse behavior there would be no need for a consumer protection agency. Real or imagined WP has marketing power. I don't think it behooves this community to be flippant about this. Those with power have a responsibility to use it thoughtfully and responsibly. I would also submit that fairness is in issue in all endeavors at all times. Businesses of equal notability should have equal representation. Your point about notability is well taken. That's the crux of this issue, I think. Unfortunately it's a subjective one. What's highly notable to a specialized field, like accounting (or plumbing, or hotel management, or theoretical physics) is far more often than not obscure to the general public. (OT- While I realize this is a useless suggestion for this debate I think the community should consider adopting standards that businesses should be required to meet in order to get a Wikipedia listing. I'd start the discussion myself, but I think it should be started by someone with a substantially more impressive WP reputation than mine.)

UrKnightErrant (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an avid user of Wikipedia, but I am a CPA. I currently use neither of these companies for my website development. I did however note in a publication I receive, WebCPA (the largest circulated industry magazine) that Emochila had a fairly large amount of coverage in the March Cover Story which you can see here http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/ where it shows the cover story, and here is the actual article: http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/30847-1.html I only wanted to bring that up to note that in accounting circles both companies are regarded quite strongly for their web development in the profession. WebCPA is surely a strong source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that article. CPA Site Solutions got a nice plug in it, too. I wanted to work it into my article as a referral, but it didn't offer any factual information worth footnoting and including it seemed to smack of advertising. It was one of their clients going on and on about how much revenue she generated using the site to cross sell her services. They got another great plug too, in the same publication, in an article about Mike Block (one of the foremost quickbooks experts in the country) but decided not to use that either. Like I said, I worked very hard to keep a neutral perspective. UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done two things regarding the Emochila article. I have read the original articles of deletion (which the community decided to keep the Emochila article after review) as well as reviewed the links under question by UninvitedCompany. First, it is unusual to be questioning an article that has been alive on Wikipedia for almost one year. Two users, GRuban and Adrianwn voted keep. I quote user GRuban of the Wikipedia community in the original articles of deletion who noted:

Reference number 5 is displayed on the company website, but is pretty clearly a scan of an independent newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that it's a fake? I doubt it. Number 4 is a non-trivial review by an independent magazine - "can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?" - well, that's what notability means, that multiple independent reliable sources have "taken note" of the company, written non-trivial articles about it. That's really all that can be expected. If this were a singer, we'd accept articles in an independent music journal, since this is an accounting software company, we need to accept articles in an independent accounting software journal....as well as....I'm not an accountant, but from digging around, it looks like a respected source in the industry. We have an article on it, CPA Technology Advisor which isn't great, but says it was around since 1991, so it's at least not a fly-by-night journal. More important, I found this: [2] in which Reuters seems to be very proud of receiving an award from them. Reuters is one of the top N news agencies in the world, for a very small N, so I doubt they would be proud of receiving an award from just anybody.

Second, I viewed the press coverage on the Emochila page and would have to agree with GRuban. #5 appears to be from the San Francisco Chronicle, the city's second largest publication. Furthermore, the article I mentioned originally earlier today (the WebCPA article) was not even mentioned in the Emochila page (I have since added it), and again, we're dealing with a respected news source in the industry, a heavy-hitting CPA magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Emochila, neutral on CPA Site Solutions. As mentioned above, in http://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/tlr_taxacct/264983, Reuters thinks CPA Technology Advisor is respectable enough that it brags about getting an award from them. Reuters is one of the top 3 international news agencies. That's one of the ways we define a Wikipedia:Reliable source, other reliable sources treat them as reliable. Therefore CPA Technology Advisor is a Reliable Source for our purposes. That, plus the Examiner article meets Wikipedia:Notability, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The WebCPA article may or may not be in addition to that, it certainly doesn't hurt. CPA Site Solutions only has one review, which isn't quite "reliable secondary sources", it's one "reliable secondary source", so I'm neutral on it. --GRuban (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: 76.105.144.161 is incorrect in regards to CPA Site Solutions receiving only one review from the CPA Technology Advisor. They have in fact been reviewed every year since 2005. The CPA Technology Advisor selects all the Accounting Web Design firms they consider notable and reviews them thoroughly. Until 2007 this review would include a "star rating", but as of last year they have stopped this (I suspect to prevent alienating potential advertisers). I'm certain CPASiteSolutions was included in all these reviews, and I'm pretty sure Emochila was too.

UrKnightErrant (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting suggested - since one of the articles at issue has been modified substantially during the course of the AFD, and due to the shortage of comments from independent editors, I suggest that this listing be restarted rather than closed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems extreme. I see no need to discard the comments made so far. Mind you, you know the rules of this community better than I. The only changes I made to the CPA Site Solutions listing were the ones that you recommended. I realize that you don't feel either company should be listed, but If you are changing the rules on those grounds I object to restarting this AfD. I would prefer to see it through to it's conclusion according to the community's normal procedures and standards.UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the listing isn't restarted I would guess that many closing admins would delete one or both articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERP! I'll just shut up then. Restart away! Whatever way it goes, Thanks for all the help The Uninvited Co. Especially in light of the fact that you are our strongest negative vote. I'm confident that I have learned what it takes to come back in the end. Brian has always avoided the media on the logic that his accomplishment speaks for itself. I think if this listing gets shot down it will give me the ammunition I need to convince him that being media shy is hurting his company, and that will get him out into the circus like a shot.UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CPA Site Solutions: delete. Fails WP:COMPANY. None of the article's fourteen references come from reliable secondary sources. Google News shows no results except for a single press release issued by the company. Google Web shows no immediately apparent WP:RS.— Rankiri (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:Only one of the references seems to come from a reliable secondary source. I still don't believe that the company meets the notability criteria that states that an organization is considered sufficiently notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources — Rankiri (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila: ~~undecided~~ weak keep^{(EDIT:The SFC source seems acceptable)}. From eight references and seven press coverage links mentioned in the article only these three can possibly be counted in a notability review:

http://news.emochila.com/emochila/news/index.jsp (hosted on emochila.com)
http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/30847-1.html?zkPrintable=true (in my view, rather trivial)
http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1016&pageNum=1 (also, the only relevant result on Google News)

As of the the rest of the sources, the ecommerce-journal article appears to be neutral on the surface, but it quotes directly from the company's press releases[1] and should not be seen as an independent reliable source. Accounting Web's Question Advice also appears to be legit but it's written by Mark Bourbin, seemingly the same Mark Bourbin who wrote this and whose contact email just happens to be Sites@emochila.com. Overall, I'd say that if #1 can be used as a reliable source, the company is passably notable to meet WP:COMPANY. — Rankiri (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, while the first reference of the undecided vote above is in fact hosted on an emochila server, it is only because the San Francisco Examiner does not host archived articles this early. Therefore it was scanned and hosted locally. It is a feature article from San Francisco's #2 circulated paper.76.105.144.161 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Rankiri. How can you give CPA Site Solutions a fail and say none of it's sources are reliable, then present two of the exact same references, WebCPAand CPA Technology Advisor as reliable for Emochila? And what about NCS? This is a non-trivial completely unrelated edited site, and Grey McKenzie himself attached his byline to it. I figured this would stand out as the strongest reference in either article. BNet/Highbeam Business Research are also independent and tightly edited. I don't see how either of these links can be simply dismissed as irrelevant.

NCS is a blog, and CPA Site Solutions does not mention WebCPA in its references. You are right about CPA Technology Advisor though. I must have mistaken it for the company's website. My sincerest apologies. — Rankiri (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. Under "External Links" you'll find a link called WebCPA E-zine. A search for CPASiteSolutions on the WebCPA site also reveals this link, which is actually in the same article that Emo used, but I chose not to use it because I was afraid a client raving about all the money they helped her make would damage the neutral perspective of the article. Besides, the recommendation from Mike Block seemed more relevant. And while NCS is a Blog, or at least a news magazine presented in a blog format, it is by no stretch of the imagination "self published" and is therefore a legitimate reference. In light of this, unless you had some other reason for voting to delete which I will gladly address, and if warranted change, I would respectfully request that you consider retracting your bid to delete my article. UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not references. I had no reason to go on every listed website and start searching not even for "CPA Site Solutions" (0 results on WebCPA) but for "CPASiteSolutions" myself. Anyway, from what I see, the WebCPA mention[2] is extremely trivial, and, as far as I know, blogs (self-published or not) are generally not accepted as key factors in establishing notability. My already revised recommendation stands. — Rankiri (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to anger you, but since the damage is done I'll not mince words. You are still mistaken. The "External Links" are valid references. This was a mistake I made in my early draft. On Wiki, for whatever reason, "footnotes" are automatically presented with the title "references", but when considering notability, which is the basis for your bid to delete, you need to step outside the "footnote" references. Just because there is no footnoted data presented in an outside article it can still offer notability. The external links should have been be included in your initial examination of the site. As for the name... CPA Site Solutions is the name of the business, and the domain name is cpasitesloutions.com. Like most online businesses the domain name has tended to overshadow the name on the business papers and utility bills. I see no need to argue 6 of one vs. half a dozen of the other. I am surprised that this has confused you. I use caps in my letters and writings for readability, but search functions are often case sensitive, and as a rule one does not capitalize domain names. If you do a search for "cpasitesolutions" (all lower case) on webcpa.com you will return 2 results, as promised. But we are bogging down in minutiae. First of all NCS is not just a Blog. If you take one look at the home page you'll see that. It's a news magazine sponsored by ligatt security. It's heavily edited and it has multiple contributors. The News is presented in Blog format, though, so for purposes of this discussion let's treat it like one. It's the nature of the blog (ie news vs opinion, professional versus hobby) that dictates it's referral value, and of course more importantly, as it says in your posted link, the element of that link being "self-published" renders it worthless. But a blog, in and of itself, is not an invalid reference. A blog by Bill Gates or sponsored by Microsoft would offer huge notability, while one by Bucky Poindexter (the little league home run king of Sulfur Louisiana) would not (especially in regards to a WP submission for an article called "Bucky Poindexter"). National Cyber Security Magazine would fall somewhere between these two extremes. In any event I am not asking anyone to consider this a "key factor". I am asking that all these factors be considered in combination. Finally, I find it fascinating that you find a recommendation by Mike Block, an independent third party, to be "trivial" while you find a recommendation by Justin Curzi, the owner of the business he's recommending, to be "relevant". UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the NPA reference is a blog, the website visibly offers Become an Author and Submit a blog links right on the top of its homepage. The second WebCPA mention is also in no way significant. I'm not sure what recommendation by Justin Curzi you're talking about — please understand that I don't spend all my free time looking for additional sourcing for your website. — Rankiri (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should read these references before deciding their validity. The very first line in the WebCPA article you are presenting as valid (and which also mentions several other web design firms in the same article, including CPA Site Solutions (twice if you include a typo) is "When Justin Curzi tries to convince accountants to use Emochila's Web site services, he encounters the same resistance he did five years ago." While Justin is presented in the article as a neutral expert he is actually one one of Emo's owners. That caused quite a stir in the CPA Site Solutions office, but in the end they decided this "highly relevant" link wasn't worth making a stink over and their energy would be better spent building a better product. On the other hand in their mention in the same magazine and by the same author in a different article this "trivial" and "irrelevant" mention (the listing under recommended resources only has one web designer) was an unsolicited endorsement from an independent third party, a recognized expert in outsourcing, and yet you describe it as irrelevant? I am beginning to suspect, sir, that you don't wear your socks on your feet. Are you in any way connected to Emochila? As to the NCS (I assume that's what you meant by NPA?) now you're just being unreasonable. There's nothing wrong with a news source accepting outside submissions, all news sources do. Are you suggesting that someone at CPA Site Solutions hijacked the National Cyber Security Founder's account and published the article under his by-line? That's just silly. There's nothing odd or unusual about accepting articles from outside sources, nor is there anything unusual about these types of sites indexing related blogs and even following them for stories. What makes the difference in legitimacy is editorial oversight, and NCS clearly has a strong editorial presence. UrKnightErrant (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Both Marketing Your Firm Online and Secrets of Outsourcing were published by Accounting Technology[3] but where Marketing Your Firm Online actually offers some sort of coverage for Emochila, none of of the two articles address CPASiteSolutions in any detail. Secrets of Outsourcing only mentions CPASS in a minor footnote and Marketing Your Firm Online only mentions it in the following passage:

Fey sought help from CPAsitesolutions in hopes of attracting new clients in case she and her partner ever wanted to leave the firm. Once the site was up, she emailed existing clients to look at it and got calls from some who wanted additional services, such as bookkeeping, that they didn't know she offered.

It is my view that the above sources (including NSC's blog that shows no signs of editorial oversight whatsoever) don't provide any significant coverage necessary for establishing the company's notability. — Rankiri (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in harping on about an article that I didn't site in my article? And if you must, then please stop misrepresenting it. The irrelevant blurb in total, which was NOT sited in the cpasitesolutions article, reads: Fey sought help from CPAsitesolutions in hopes of attracting new clients in case she and her partner ever wanted to leave the firm. Once the site was up, she emailed existing clients to look at it and got calls from some who wanted additional services, such as bookkeeping, that they didn't know she offered. People looking for QuickBooks help on the ProAdvisor site get redirected to her site and sometimes seek tax help as well. One client alone generated $2,500 in fees.

As for NCS and Ligatt security, you clearly know nothing about internet security. You want links, how about the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch? That's right, they are the company that's BUYING Cyber Defense Systems. This is a VERY reputable company, and their NCS site is not only a recognized but respected source of high tech security news. I can't believe that you are SO clearly biased that you wouldn't even bother to Google the company before dismissing it like that. To a layman, sure, no big deal, but to anyone who really knows and understands high tech security this is a huge feather in CPA Site Solution's cap. UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrKnightErrant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Please actually read the articles before forming an opinion. That is not the article cited on the CPA Site Solutions page. Although yes, we did get a couple of mentions. The article I sited for CPA Site Solutions is called Secrets of Outsourcing, same author, dated 9/1/07. It's an interview with Mike Block, a very famous accountant (I know that seems like a contradiction in terms but he's pretty close to the Brad Pitt of accountants). On the very first page of the article he recommends CPA Site Solutions as his preferred website provider along with three other companies that provide different CPA related services. This is not a passing footnote. This is an unsolicited endorsement from a recognized neutral third party. UrKnightErrant (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with this neverending stream of replies, I got the names of the articles completely messed up. I corrected the links and restructured my previous comment to clarify my position. — Rankiri (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila: Keep. I have alerted the folks at that firm that the scan at http://news.emochila.com/emochila/news/index.jsp was being questioned by the community as to its legitimacy. While the San Francisco Chronicle does not archive online their articles this far back, they did find the FRONT PAGE of the paper that day, which has been included in the aforementioned link. As you can see, on the front page, bottom right, there is the reference to the Emochila article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (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.