Talk:Accounting scholarship

Merge +tag

 * Merge - should be merged with Accountancy What123 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - although accounting scolarship contributes to accounting it is not accounting. Neither would most people who practice accounting care about scholarship. Perhaps a cross-link with accounting would be more appropriate. --Mig77 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge: half of this article appears to be about academia in general. The whole accounting academia section seems a bit superficial in any respect. The types and areas of research are just lists containing topics which are more likely to be searched for themselves. Danrees 08:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't even have an article an accounting, only a redirect to Accountancy which refers to the profession, not the academic discipline. JQ 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated on accounting, that article is already too large. --57.68.49.4 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag was removed from Accounting...can we remove the tag here? If no one replies in 2 weeks, I will remove it (in accordance w/ Wikipedia conventions) --57.68.49.4 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

from VfD:
This is a pro-forma nomination, without the usual implicit Delete vote on my part. The article in question was rewritten and renamed during the debate under its former title, Professor in accounting. My principal concerns are that this article --Jerzy(t) 23:37, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * should not, if worthy of retention, be under the cloud of resembling speedy-deletable articles that "have the same content as a VfD-deleted article", and
 * conversely, should not undercut the principle that renaming during VfD should not be a viable avenue for avoiding deletion of an otherwise doomed VfD-candidate.


 * Keep. The problem with the Professor in accounting article was only that the information was packaged as a job description. The content as such is an encyclopedic topic, even though the new article still needs some work. Martg76 00:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was willing to keep the article as renamed, but deleting Professor in accounting is appropriate. This article has evolved beyond a simple job description and describes the various aspects of accounting instruction. --Deathphoenix 06:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge with Accounting. Wyss 06:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end mived discussion

Problem
The following statement is flawed, "The theoretical underpinnings of both accounting and finance are derived from economics." Accounting is not derived from economics, and on many occasions the two are in opposition. The classical example is that accounting ignores opportunity cost, which is a fundamental of economics. In addition, accounting - particularly financial account - is shaped by the law (usually tax law) such that the established rules of economics no longer apply. Furthermore, accounting makes arbitrary distinctions which have no economic basis, for example distinguishing between capital leases and operating leases. I recommend deleting the sentence, unless the consensus of the profession disagrees with me. Rugz (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)