Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accounting software


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

List of accounting software
Delete Redundant to Category:Accounting software Karnesky 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: we also have a comparison of accounting software. (unsigned comment by JzG)
 * Redirect to comparison of accounting software. I've already merged the few unique programs from this list to the comparison. I don't see any reason to keep this list now!--Karnesky 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Change to keep per Nelson Ricardo's comment. Royboycrashfan 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories are inadequate. They cannot hold red links for future articles, for example. If the aerticle is voted for deletion, then the deleter must ensure the list is copied back to the main accounting software article.  --Nelson Ricardo 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, they can; include the red links in the commentary section of the category page. It just is not common. As for me, delete - Skysmith 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note There are no red links in this list. Furthermore, I've added the appropriate cat tag to all articles in the list. If, in the future, people want to request articles on accounting software, there are already mechanisms to do this without using this list. -- Karnesky 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tricky, page has been around a while with plenty of activity but Wikipedia articles are not just lists of links, internal or external (WP:NOT 1.5.2). On that basis this is delete as (re: Karnesky) the info can and should be found elsewhere. ++Deiz 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete — Rather than having a red link in an obscure list, it would be better to simply create a stub article on any program to be added to the category and let it be fleshed out later. Stubs are much more encyclopedic than red links. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
 * Delete since that's what categories are here for. -- 9cds(talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as we're citing wp:not, "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This list article has structure not reflected in the corresponding category. There is no policy or consensus against having a list and a category with the same scope. I don't understand the reasoning on this AfD at all.Melchoir 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note. I agree that lists can be fine.  I made no complaints about lists of links in the AfD.  However, the only "stucture" this list lends is in licensing.  So why not create two subcats to the main category accounting software?  The reason for this AfD is that the cats are more maintainable than this list & the list, itself, adds very little (licensing). --Karnesky 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be harmful to sub-split a category with only 34 articles. This list page is the only way to have all the items on one page, yet still sorted. Okay, so it currently sucks. It could use further breakdown by purpose, or maybe a short description of every item. It can be improved. Melchoir 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would it be harmful? I actually think having a cat of Free accounting software would be useful, as it could be cross-listed under the Free software cat. -- Karnesky 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there would no longer be a single place where you could see all the items. One of the purposes of a category is to guide the reader between its articles. Splitting it would make it less efficient. Melchoir 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The reason categories exist... Compu  te  r  Jo  e  08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a harmless list article. J I P  | Talk 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. (changed vote, see below) Categories don't make lists obsolete. Lists allow for organization which differs from alphabetical order and annotation which categories can't. Needs some explanatory info added, but otherwise okay list. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I interest Sir in a comparison of accounting software, one careful owner, only slightly shopsoiled? ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, merge and redirect to comparison of accounting software. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as written, redundant per category, will change to keep if some encyclopaedic information is added (e.g. modules available, whether it's tax accounting or small business book-keeping or whatever) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 11:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MgM says merge and redirect - following a long tradition, I agree with mgm :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yes, lists add information categories cannot. In this case, I do not think that a list is necessary. Lord Bob 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ouuplas 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a list which provides information the category cannot, together with the category, is more beneficial than the category alone. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create one, then - this list does not contain anythign a category can't. I'd change my vote if it did (and by that I do not mean redlinks). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to category. I do not see what information that a category doesn't provide. If you want to make the division between free and proprietary, use subcategories. There is no information on this page that couldn't be put on a category page. Stifle 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep . Lists and categories are complementary, not competitive. Seems like a useful, verifiable list with a well-defined criteria. Turnstep 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems like it until you compare it with comparison of accounting software which is massively more useful and contains encyclopaedic content as well as the links which would be provided by a category :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good point - the two lists are certainly competing, aren't they? Since one is a beefed-up version of the other, I'll switch to merge duplicated information (if any) and delete. Turnstep 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good arguments on both sides.  Currently, this list is more flexible than the comparison table, and (perhaps not a coincidence) there is now another red link on the page.  However, the list is essentially duplicated by the comparison table.  Suggest the comparison table article doubles as the list article.  If necessary to have items which are not within the table, these can be in a separate section.  Slowmover 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the redlink was for Peachtree Software, which did have an article. --Karnesky 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:13, 10 February 2006 (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.