ClearBooks is trying to get itself a page on Wikipedia. The moderators don’t seem wholly enamoured of the prospect. The company is bravely trying to persuade the moderators that Wikipedia’s reasons for considering the article for deletion are wrong.
There are potential errors on both sides. Wikipedia sees the page as bordering on self promotional advertising and that ClearBooks is not ‘notable’ within its guidelines:
Delete. Unfortunately, this company hasn’t yet reached the levels of notability required for this encyclopedia. User:TimFouracre misunderstands the criteria. The company should receive significant coverage (ie, not just trivial mentions) in reliable sources that address the company specifically. It isn’t enough to simply be a company, you have to be a notable company. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The question of ‘notability’ is a tough one and certainly open to interpretation – the one thing that Wikipedia tries hard to avoid in its brave efforts to be a relible source in its own right.
Further critique suggests that mentions made by AccMan (and others) are ‘not reliable’ because blogs are not considered reliable sources. This is a weak argument because in reference to EditGrid, there is also reference to things AccMan has said in the past. Others who have maintained a blog presence are also used in the EditGrid Wikipedia entry. As a side notes note, the EditGrid reference needs updating. For all practical purposes, the service has been shuttered for more than 2 years and that fact is not included in its entry.
Now – before we descend into an argument about whether Wikipedia is a reliable source in itself, it is usually sufficiently reliable as a starting point for further inquiry via the pursuit of links. But it suffers from the same problems as anything that’s crowdsourced. It needs constant updating and amendment.
Wikipedia’s moderators are certainly taking a hard line. The original entry was entered by Tim Fouracre, CEO and co-founder rather than by a third party. That always gives moderators a bad whiff of attempted self promotion. And let’s be clear (sic.) ClearBooks has not exactly been a model of openness. Rather it shuns criticism.
I have no problem with ClearBooks having a Wikipedia entry and I genuinely believe moderators should review the entry more sympathetically. However, it has to be far better balanced and that is not present.