Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adminsoft Accounts


 * 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. At least that's the consensus among contributors who do not appear to have a conflict of interest.  Sandstein  05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Adminsoft Accounts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article failed at Articles for creation and was moved into main space by the article creator anyway. Non notable software. references are either user written or on a download site. Book is self-published. Vague claim to "received acknowledgement" from IAB has been expanded since Prod notice added, but does not seem to be anything significant. noq (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Objections:'''
 * s


 * Originally the article was moved to AfD because the creator was not established with enough edits elsewhere. The page of course needed a look at it. And was cleaned, hence moved to the main area. The editor who may have made a personal objective to remove the article has produced vague arguments! Even than the creator has cleaned up objectively the page further.
 * Like TurboCash or GNU in Wikipedia, it is not unusual for Adminsoft Accounts to be included here. The basis of the remark about dismissing it as ‘non notable' software DOES NOT have any concrete and established rules to adjudge as such. There are thousands of satisfied users internationally using the software, and the honest figure has beed given on the page which is much more than any of other software in Wikipedia has done. These figure can be verified by any independent audits if someone is prepared to pay for it. If the software is usd by users all over the world, and the tax regimes don't have a problem, it cannot be dismissed as a vague notion that it is a 'non-notable' software. Has the individual who has made this remark tried it? What is his or her background qualifications in this matter?
 * A remark about the book as a self-publication is also wrong. It is published by the publishers Skylark Publications UK which legally files tax returns in the UK. It has been publishing since 1970 and has published many hundred renowned poets over the decades. Thepublishing portal for the cost effectiveness used for the Print-on-Demand is not a self-publication as misguided information gven by the editor. Sktlark publications is registered l, like all major publishers, at Lighthouse Source for the similar arrangement as well. It has no interest whatsoever in Adminsoft. Original editor's remark creates a real false impression.
 * The IAB is a significant international body recognised and delivering education qualifications including at the universities, and to dismiss its statement which they issed after significant checks (where it has been also shown in the book by Skylark Publications UK how examination criteria are met through the use of the paper by this software)makes the objection by the said editor unsound and uinvalid.Instead this situation only makes the software more notable against many software, including the Wiki-isted TurboCash less important. The body such as IAB when makes an authorised acknowledgement fo any type, they do not do it lightly, and issue them casually!
 * Reviews of the most software are user oriented unless the magazines do the features. But where does the success of software come from? Not the users?

Y C Narker (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Objectively speaking, with the points substantiated, it is expected that the objections are not subjective, and the page is moved back to the main area by someone reasonable.
 * The article was rejected at AfC - just because you then had enough edits to be able to move it into mainspace does not make it a wise thing to do. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because a similar product has an article does not mean this one should and the existence of other articles has no bearing on whether this is notable. It is not up to Wikipedia to pay for audits to establish the truth of the numbers. If that does not exist then the claim cannot be supported. Whether I have tried the software or not is immaterial - notability needs to be verified by independent WP:reliable sources. The book is published by Skylark - who list one of the two editors as Yogesh Patel - who is the author of the book. Skylark produce a small number of books - almost all written by the two editors. Sounds like self publishing to me.  The significance of the IAB is not in question - what is in question is what "received acknowledgement" means and if that is published anywhere other than in the book. Where else is it "acknowledged"? Please read WP:GNG, WP:verifiability and WP:reliable sources - then ask yourself if this meets the requirements. noq (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The sourcing in the article do not represent reliable sources and the closest thing I could find was this passing mention in The Hindu]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC


 * I was glad to find more details about Adminsoft Accounts at Wikipedia. Having recently switched from TAS after many years of using it successfully, I was not sure; but it came highly recommended, free, and with the assurance of the IAB and many users successfully using it worldwide. To my surprise, I found the software to be extra-ordinary with many new helpful features it offered. I actually feel more in control of my bookkeeping than with other software I have used.  Hence, it was quite informative to find more about it at Wikipedia to explore it further, though I am dismayed at the negative comments expressed here while I have come to know differently. J Piper Jempiper (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — Jempiper (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - This discussion is about whether an article on Adminsoft Accounts on wikipedia should exist based on our inclusion guidelines. It is not a discussion on the merits of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable source is the acknowledgement by the IAB. To remain unbiased, education bodies like IAB do not publish acknowledgements. Book is an independent source and the right place for its inclusion. The book is not self-published by the Adminsoft Accounts.  Author (a Society of Author member verifiable through their portal) nor the publishers (A UK registered company verifiable at Neilsen’s portal) look part of Adminsoft Accounts. Reliable source is also the published material ISBN 978-0-9560840-2-6 as per the guidelines. The book looks with a reliable publication process Neisen Bookdata and available through all bookshops and publishing channels including Amazon. The author through the searches looks authoritative in relation to the subject, through his qualifications in the subject - all in the public domain. The search also reveals he trains people, is a registered UK training provider (UKRLP: 10033957)again verifiable through the government portal. The reliability and verifiable position indicates the article meets the criteria for the inclusion in WikipediaSJBSun (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' Can you provide a reference where the IAB "acknowledged" it other than the book itself? What does "acknowledged" mean in this context - Google has no hits for "IAB acknowledgement" so is this something unique to this book. An ISBN number is no indication of notability. Nielson bookdata is no better than an ISBN number. It just shows it was published not that it is reliable or notable. Neither I nor google knows what UKPRN: 10033957 means. noq (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment' As the developer of Adminsoft Accounts I had no intention of participating in the Wikipedia article.  But looking through the comments here, I feel that I need to correct some misunderstandings.     The book ‘Free Accounting with Free Software’ was written by Yogesh Patel, not me.    The book is an introduction to accounting, suitable for accounts students up to IAB Level 3 Diploma.   Other than writing a book based around Adminsoft Accounts, Yogesh nor Skylark Publications UK have any interest in the software or the company that distributes it (Adminsoft Ltd. registered in England).   Yogesh worked closely with the IAB (International Association of Book-keepers) while writing the book (which includes an IAB test paper), and as such the book contains an acknowledgement from the IAB, this acknowledgement also refers to the software.


 * I am puzzled at the assertion the software is ‘non-notable’.  It is in use by thousands of people across with World.  It has been downloaded over 70,000 times.  A rather large file that contains a log of each download is available to back up this claim if required, at no cost.  Obviously not as successful as a product such as GNU, but not bad for a one man company with no marketing budget whatsoever.   The references provided in the article do not look like download sites to me (another comment I can’t understand).  But I agree they do appear to be brief reviews written by users of the software.  But surely the users are the best qualified to publish a review?   They have to live with the software.  On that subject, user feedback is available here: http://www.adminsoftware.biz/customercomments.html  If necessary all of them can be supported by copies of the relevant emails.


 * Finally, although I read a lot of articles in Wikipedia, I’m not really familiar with the procedures and regulations involved in publishing them.  But surely something like Adminsoft Accounts, which is a successful and free accounts package, available for anyone to use, is in tune with Wikipedia itself?  Thank you.  Mike Towle


 * Comment The book is published by the author - that makes it self-published and as a consequence of questionable reliability. As for notability - read WP:ORG and we need that backed up by independent WP:reliable sources. The two reviews included are from a user posted site and from place77 which has a prominent "Download Adminsoft accounts free from place77.com" notice at the bottom of the review.  Please read the notability and reliable sources links for more information. noq (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is unlikely to provide a reliable source. Interesting that you identify the article creator as being the author of the book. noq (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, sorry. I can't seem to locate any reliable sources. The passing mention in the Hindu is nice but trivial.  As far as I can tell, Skylark is a vanity press founded/edited by the same author of the book.  I spent time looking through back versions of the International Accounting Bulletin as that would appear to have been an impressive endorsement, but apparently we're talking about some bookkeeping organization which shares the same initials. I'm also disappointed by the forum posting soliciting support I ran across, but judging by the traffic there, this is likely not a great concern.  Are there any other sources I'm missing?  It seems like a neat project, and we have a very low threshold for inclusion here for software, but I'm just not seeing it at the moment.  Kuru   (talk)  21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The author of the book has no connection to the software company. Self-published describes the majority of publications today. I am personally an expert in this field, and have been recognized as such by being asked to be a speaker at developer conferences.Tuvia613 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "Trust me I'm a doctor" type statements do not meet the WP:verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. noq (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Statement We are writing to refute any discrediting statements appearing here about our business, and to clarify that Skylark Publications UK is an independent ompany filing its tax returns in the UK with representation in India. Our production comes from a variety of sources including Lightning Source with its global distribution channels in the USA, UK, and Australia through their many distributing partners listed on their website, including Ingram and Barnes & Noble. As a small press, we also use any other channels including Lulu, and printers in villages and towns in India as a cost-effective solution for distribution, but we are not a self-publishing or a vanity publishing solution. Our advisory panel includes Lord Dholakia, Lord Parekh and Debjani Chatterjee, MBE and contribute to our Word Masala imprint. If one of our authors also happens to be a partner in the business, then we cannot  ignore the extra potential revenue, we will use the author ourselves. However, this does not give the right to anyone to damage our commercial interest, and brand us as a self-publisher, and undermine our other authors and the forthcoming publishing programme.  We have never taken any money from any of our authors, poets or artists. We view it very seriously. We have no desire to be on Wikipedia nor is it where we seek any ‘notability’. Like any book publishers we accept that the criticism of any of our published work will have critics for it or against it, and in the process of selection of MSS our own editors will have different opinions too.  Our book project, Free Accounting with Free Software, is well researched and developed with advice from the IAB, allowing us to publish and work through their examination material and test papers. Accept if you will, but do not indulge in damaging our reputation branding us as publishers offering a self-publishing solution, directly or indirectly. We have noticed that the editors have already deleted one comment from this discussion. Please do not delete this comment. Thank you. Baku Rangoonwala, Skylark Publications UKSkylark Publications UK (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ’’’ Page Creator’s note’’’ This page was written with an honest intention for people to find some more information along with TurboCash and GNU in Wikipedia, and thus enrich the pool. The discussion has slipped in to bringing independent references and sources in to disrepute as a main focus, which was not my purpose. Therefore, before any more damaging comments to third parties are added here, to protect them, sadly, I recommend to one of the administrator to close the discussion, whatever Wikipedia decides. Please do not remove this comment either.Y C Narker (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Once again I feel I have to enter a comment here. I have received a rather distressed email from Yogesh Patel regarding the aspersions cast on his book, and the publishing company Skylark Publications UK in certain contributions to this discussion which have been utterly reckless with regard to the feelings and reputations of the people/organisations they seem intent on trashing. If you don’t know what sort of publisher Skylark Publications UK is, then ask! Don’t jump to wild (and wildly incorrect) conclusions. What happened to the ‘assume good faith’ that you’re supposed to practice? That’s part of Wikipedia’s guidelines too.

Anyway, regarding references that seem to be so important to you guys, I had a look this morning and found four references to articles either all about Adminsoft Accounts, or where Adminsoft Accounts was part of the discussion. Unfortunately, each URL appears to be on Wikipedia's black list, it says 'due to spaming'. Being an unregistered user I can't set Wikipedia to allow access to these links, so have put them on this page: www.adminsoftware.biz/links.html  I also found a paragraph about the software in a book called 'Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible' by Steve Monas.

Mike Towle, developer of Adminsoft Accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.177.238 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't seem to be find sources that are both notable and third-party, no news coverage according to Google News as well as the archives. SwisterTwister   talk  06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion I’ve finally found time to read the guidelines in Wikipedia regarding the contribution of articles.

The fundamental question here is whether Adminsoft Accounts is notable. It is notable if it has “received significant coverage in reliable sources…” (General notability guideline). ‘Significant coverage’ does not mean there already has to be dozens of articles published about the topic, it simply means “that sources address the subject directly in detail…..” and “coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic…” (General notability guideline). There is one published book (Free Accounting with Free Software by Yogesh Patel, published by Skylark Publications UK) that is based around Adminsoft Accounts, and another published book (Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible by Steve Monas published by iUniverse) that contains some details about the software (the main topic being about business start ups). Are these books reliable sources?

In the case of “Free Accounting with Free Software”, this was written as a tutorial on basic accounting, based around Adminsoft Accounts. The author Yogesh Patel (who has accounting qualifications, FIAB) worked with the IAB to ensure the book would be suitable for students taking the IAB level 3 Diploma. The book carries an IAB examination paper, and an official acknowledgement: “Together with the related software, Adminsoft, this book is acknowledged by the IAB and IAAP to be a useful and cost effective tool in the pursuit of efficient financial management.”. So this book was written by someone qualified in the subject, in co-operation with an organisation of unquestionable credentials. As a source, it could not be any more reliable. The author is a partner/shareholder in the company that published it, Skylark Publications UK. But he could hardly use another publisher, what would that say about the company to it’s existing and future authors?

The book “Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible” by Steve Monas is published by iUniverse. They are a self publishing company, although the book is available through several mainstream, outlets, including Amazon. However, under Wikipedia guidelines self publishing can be acceptable where the author is an established expert in the field. Steve Monas is a successful serial entrepreneur in the publishing, video, music and film industries. It is quite common these days for many authoritative authors to publish their own works. As pointed out by one comment on this page.

So both books appear to be reliable, under Wikipedia’s own guidelines. Making Adminsoft Accounts a notable product. If you still have doubts, I draw your attention to Wikipedia’s guideline about using common sense. I quote: “Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.”  I mention this because Adminsoft Accounts is becoming very successful (if necessary, verifiable by way of the download log file). It is in use by tens of thousands of small businesses across the world. Without wanting to sound like I’m selling the product, it is easy to use, fully featured, and free. Which is making it invaluable to a great many small businesses, including many in developing countries. As it is so useful to so many people, and it helps maintain some sort of balance between the offerings of the large software companies and the far smaller companies like Adminsoft,  it is surely in the interests of Wikipedia that the article remain.

Mike Towle, developer of Adminsoft Accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.177.238 (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.