Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pastel Accounting


 * 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   no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, since the 2 previous relisting administrators did not find the participation/arguments sufficient for a "keep" close, I'm going to close it NC. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Pastel Accounting

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant  (talk)  02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This should actually be judged against NSOFT, not CORP, as mentioned below by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff below. --Slashme (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I think there's a reasonable assertion of notability in the article. It's been around for more than two decades, is frequently required for job placements in South Africa, and is taught in many third party courses. There is a link to the Cape Town University of Technology short course in Pastel in the article, but many other such courses are available (e.g. this one). A quick look at Google Books shows that it's mentioned in many published books, with full textbooks solely devoted to Pastel. I am not an accountant, but pretty much anyone who has browsed job ads in south africa knows Pastel. (examples: financial accountant job ad salesperson job ad bookkeeper job ad --Slashme (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources you linked appear to be job advertisement websites, and the reliability of these sources is questionable. The Google books link above has a very large number of irrelevant links. This narrowed Google books search has more relevant hits, but the coverage appears to be trivial mentions. (i.e. the program is on several lists of software) There still doesn't appear to be anything substantial though. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this would be a better "restricted" search, and you'll see that many of the books here list it as a typical example of accounting software. That shows that it's widely covered.  As for the job ads, they might not be reliable sources for some claims, but they clearly show that it's often a requirement for accounting and other jobs, a claim that's also well supported by many of the books, and the university course linked. --Slashme (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: though most sources give little to no description of this software, several imply notability (see the Google Books search links above), which makes me believe it passes WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:48, 27 March 2012 (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.