Talk:List of personal finance software

HomeBank

Viewmont Viking removed HomeBank from this article without providing information as to why, other than a "NN" edit summary, which I presume might stand for Notability. There are only 4 (including HomeBank) free and open-source software listed here, and HomeBank is an active project since 2007. I'm not quite sure why wouldn't it qualify to be included in this article. I undid the deletion as I see no reason to support it unless more elements can be brought forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freayd (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, it I removed it because it is not a notable entry according to Wikipedia guidelines. Lists like this should only include subjects that already have an article. I have removed it again for the same reason.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not a valid reason. HomeBank is an article, or at least it was until TheDragonFire changed it into a redirect to this article without providing any valid reason. I think you and TheDragonFire should come up with evidences to support your notability dispute and try to discuss the matter before deleting other's contributions. We could dive into data from different sources to see which software is more popular, but a quick search on AlternativeTo shows us that HomeBank is not only a popular open-source choice, it's actually popular even comparing it to closed source software. --Freayd (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to create Draft:HomeBank and then submit it for review. If it is notable it should not have any problems being approved as an article. Then you can then add it to this list.--VViking_TalkEdits 20:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly you and TheDragonFire should seize the right to delete content about HomeBank without any justification and without trying to gain consensus from the Wikipedians even though dozens of them have worked on this content, but to restore it consensus need to be reached? I object. The ones that remove content should explain their moves and discuss it with the community beforehand, shouldn't they? That's too easy to go around and effortlessly ruin the work of others and then claim they should spend their time on discussing and rebuilding content once again. I think we should undo the deletions, and then you can try and gather evidences of non-notability and propose removal. Especially since so far, there's no indication that this software is not notable other than your own personal belief. --Freayd (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Freayd: Hey! Just catching up here, apparently I made this change 2 years ago. There is a practice of redirecting articles that are considered problematic or non-notable. I certainly try to avoid doing so without discussion in situations where it is likely to be challenged, and I clearly got it wrong here. I've restored the page, if anyone wants to delete it in the future, Articles for deletion would be the appropriate venue. Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! TheDragonFire (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Grisbi

This one is missing… https://www.grisbi.org/ --Gilcot (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)