Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peachtree 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The result was withdrawn. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Peachtree Accounting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Notability of this software is not established with the inline citations of the reliable sources discussing the topic in depth. Since being tagged with refimprove back in December 2007 the article still relies exclusively on primary sources. My search gives no reliable sources either. DePRODed with rationale: "I don't really see a problem with the sources on the article - more to the point, the solution here is to improve the references, not to delete, unless there is a complete lack of notability." Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even trivial investigation finds reliable sources discussing the software, including PC world, well over 10 books (including a "For Dummies" book,) and at least one reference in The Wall Street Journal ("Small businesses, defined by the IRS as those with assets of less than $10 million, often use one off-the-shelf software program such as Intuit Inc.'s INTU +2.74% QuickBooks or Sage Group's SGE.LN +2.26% Peachtree."  I stopped looking after finding that one, but expect to find more.)  I agree the lack of references of article in a problem, but deletion isn't the solution to that.  Frankly, the existence of the "For Dummies" book by itself settles the issue for me.  (And, that book would probably make an excellent secondary source to improve the referencing in the article, if someone wants to find it in their local library) Nandesuka (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note, that the first link is "about.com" — typical unreliable source, books are written by people connected to the software's vendor (which is quite evident from a glance) and WSJ only side mentions the topic. Nowhere close to what WP:GNG requires. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's notable, it's a syndicated article from PC World. Look at the URL, it says pcworld.about.net. Just because it's from a site that is usually user-sourced doesn't mean everything is user-sourced, and there is wiggle-room for syndicated content used on the site.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, may be you could give a PCWorld link? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. For future reference, you can try this procedure: visit the about.com link, highlight the title (in this case, "Peachtree 2007 Improves Office Integration") and then paste that into the search box.  Click "Google search."  In this case, the original PC world article is the the very first link: here it is.  I'm glad to help out, and I hope you find this procedure useful in future discussions.  In regards to your other point re: that article, we don't have to guess about whether a user or someone connected to the company wrote it, because the link I originally provided had a byline to the PC World author who wrote it.  Looking at a URL is useful, but not sufficient - you actually have to examine the content in question, and this time it looks to me like you didn't.    Nandesuka (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at URLs is often enough to examine the possibility of using the link as a reference. So, now we have one reliable source of multiple needed. Other suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there are multiple reliable sources provided; just because you didn't examine a source does not mean that that source hasn't been provided. In fact, you have provided multiple reliable sources, as you would know if you clicked on the "books" link of this very AfD.  Or are you seriously trying to argue that books published by major publishers are not reliable sources?  When there is one book on a topic, notability should be considered.  When there are 20 or so books on it, I don't see how anyone can argue non-notability with a straight face.
 * In any event, this is not the venue to dissect the fine details of how each source discusses the software. What matters is that a single trivial google search shows that many such sources exist (and presumably more could be found if someone spent more than the 30 seconds I spent to locate those 20 or so links, articles, and books), and thus your claim of non-notability is incorrect on its face.  I'm a big believer in deleting articles on non-notable topics (ask anyone; I've been referred to as a 'rabid deletionist' in more than one forum), but I think you've made a pretty obvious mistake here.  I think you should own up to it and move on. Nandesuka (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nandesuka is quite correct. See also WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep FFS! How many decades has Peachtree been around? What fraction of the small business accountancy market do they have?  Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Was WP:BEFORE done here? Because if you're a small business in the United States and Canada, you've heard of it easily. Pretty much like Quicken and Word, a highlight title in its software field. The usual cites, fix the problems and AfD isn't cleanup.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then sure you can find the viable references. I did WP:BEFORE and failed to find anything. If this problem looked fixable, I wouldn't get this article to AfD in the first place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 29 July 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.