Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Comparative Analysis of The Effectiveness of Three Solvency Management Models


 * 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   DELETE as essay/original research. Have userfied text to originating author's user space to allow selective merger to articles identified below if desired. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A Comparative Analysis of The Effectiveness of Three Solvency Management Models

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It is an essay/original research by a user's own assertion, which is also a clear conflict of interest. Completely and unsalvageably unencylopedic. Disputed prod. Cquan (after the beep...) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge to solvency. I have taken the liberty of removing the worst of the original research, leaving a decent summary of current literature. It would be helpful for the solvency page to have information on current metrics of solvency. Parts of this might also be able to be merged to working capital management. Mangostar (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge to solvency. The article is a good one and all areas of conflict have been removed. I believe it is encyclopedic now. It is also recommended for merger with Bankruptcy and working capital management. bertrands 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs)
 * Change Article's Title to Metrics of Solvency to reflect the merger with solvency. The article is based on a new idea on solvency measurement and is considered a great contribution to knowledge in the field of financial economics. Bertrands 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I appreciate the first two comments. They have been really helpful. I hope the changes made now reflect their aspirations. I particularly thank Mangostar for his cleanup exercise and his well thoughtout suggestions.--Bertrands 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge to solvency. With the original research removed, this seems to be a useful review of different ways solvency has been measured. EALacey (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge to solvency or change title to Metrics of Solvency. The contents of the article are remarkable and highly inspiring. An intellectual breakthrough no doubt. --82.206.131.189 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to know how much of the article is still a blatant copy of, the original thesis by, I'm assuming, User:Enyi2001. Speaking of which, comments from Mangostar and EALacey aside, everything else is awfully suspicious (Enyi2001 signing as user Bertrands, which doesn't exist and the latest comment from 82.206.131.189, with no other contributions and an IP address from Enyi's university). Besides that, Wikipedia is not a literature review nor a place to promote/introduce new ideas/theories that have yet to gain general acceptance. Simply being useful and interesting should not be reasons for inclusion. This is an encyclopedia, not a textbook or journal. I'm sure some portions are notable and/or worth merging to other articles, but certainly not the section about the author's own work. Cquan (after the beep...) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the comment of the last editor, however, it seems that he is trying to suggest that wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not welcome new knowledge. If that supposition is true then where is the encyclopedic quality? Besides, the theory is not new as it has already gained wide publicity in some journals and a book of reading of which references were included. I am not averse to the merging of any part or portion to any existing article as proposed but what is wrong about the author's own work? Please educate me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 5 June 2008 (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.