Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accounting identity


 * 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 keep. Michael as 10 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounting identity



 * Delete - article is virtually the same as the previously created Accounting equation, which is the correct name for this concept. I posted a merger +tag for a couple of weeks, but nothing was resolved. EnviroGranny 14:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge the relevant info yourself. J. D. Redding
 * Comment: The editor that created the new article does not want them merged, see the article talk page. EnviroGranny 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep. Information should be moved. J. D. Redding 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted on talk page, the concepts are distinct but related; one is not used in economics (for example), the other is. I see no need to conflate the two articles. A quick search on google will find both terms used in different contexts, and the statement that "accounting equation" is the correct term for the concept is contentious. A note on procedure: on the article page, a merge was proposed and 'nothing was resolved'; meaning no consensus, and one proposal to merge in the other direction. To move from that quiet discussion to proposing article deletion seems odd.--Gregalton 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nowhere near enough information to constitute its own article: it is a single concept--a somewhat in-depth dictionary definition. I'd support merge, but the article is unsourced and appears to have been so since it was created over a month ago. Merging bad (or original, or both) research into an existing article isn't going to help things. If the submitting editor--who is active and present in the community--doesn't think his own work is important enough to source and improve to standard, I don't see why anyone else would. Delete and if someone else thinks it's worth recreating, they might do it better. Wysdom 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the article that it's being proposed this content be merged into isn't sourced, either. The single link on Accounting equation seems to be an 11 part accounting mini-course on the subject--no indication wherein or even which parts of the article here are sourced from the linked content. Merges should be for solid content /into/ solid article. We've neither here. Wysdom 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Accounting equation is the correct name for the article and it involves accounting concepts, the article is well written. EnviroGranny 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So only poorly written articles should be expected to comply with WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, etc? With respect, EnviroGranny, if it's not sourced, it could be Shakespeare and it would still be bad. If it's not sourced, it's not verifiable. If it's not verifiable, it could be a bunch of hooey, could be OR, could be copyvio, could be /brilliant/... but who's to say? How is anyone held accountable? (>.< Doh. PunResistance(TM) is out-of-order today... I was helpless in the face of the opportunity!) Wysdom 17:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:Perhaps we could put this in the context of what the actual guidelines are for deletion, and what has been discussed. First is the claim that the content is the same as another article; I think looking at the article it is obvious this is not the case. Second, the claim that another term is "correct"; this comment is not sourced, referenced or otherwise supported. Finally, there are two comments to the effect that the article is not sourced, and is short. Fair enough, if one thinks that, the usual approach is to mark the article with the appropriate flags (stub and source) rather than propose for deletion. I don't see that the other reasons for deletion apply.--Gregalton 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Distinct from other terms and articles referenced. Encyclopedic and useful. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: Just looked through g.books nd seems as this term is notable ... total view ... partial view ... J. D. Redding 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposal If either T3 or Reddi want to source the article (and its larger sister, Accounting equation) so the information in both is verifiably cited, I'll vote merge. It doesn't damage or detract from either article for these "distinct but related" concepts to be presented together. My main concern, however, remains the current article (unsourced) and it's sister (possible sourced, not cited) /aren't/ encyclopedic or useful remains. See WP:CITE "Why sources should be cited". These are all important. You can't, with alll respect, call an article "encyclopedic" and "useful" when you have no way of verifying the content. (I know, it seems like I'm not pitching in on this, and I'm sorry, but I know NOTHING about accounting, math, economics, business, or anything related... it's beyond my scope). Wysdom 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - whoa, don't be thrown off by the similar terminology here. An accounting equation is definitely a totally different concept from an accounting identity.  An accounting equation is a type of accounting identity, but the two are not the same.  In essence, an accounting identity in economics is the division of some quantity, a priori into a set of things - by definition.  The two are definitely distinct concepts, and this article should not be deleted for "redundancy".  It's also 100% notable - and I can dig probably a half-dozen textbooks from my room that use it, and define it.  --Haemo 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe you, guys. Notbability isn't at issue. I'm getting a little frustrated that no one seems to understand or acknowledge why sources should be cited. "Improves the overall credibility...of Wikipedia" is a biggie, to me. I used to come here for info a lot before getting involved in the community--articles I couldn't verify were worthless to me because I knew anyone could edit. So no matter how well-writen (which these are), no matter how CORRECT in fact, articles that aren't sourced/cited wind up being about as useful to the end-user as a list of Digimon. So if I seem anal retentive on this point--I am. Because what we're trying to do is create an encyclopedia that's useful to people--by not demanding sources, we're not just letting those qualities slip, we're erroding them across the board. Imho. My vote remains Delete--on meaningless principle. :) Best wishes, Wysdom 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll be good to my word - I've added three four sources, just for you ;) --Haemo 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your points about citation are understood, but deletion is (IMHO) the wrong method to achieve it or make points of principle (meaningless or not ;). The deletion policy says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Flags can and should be added when needed, including requesting sources. Deletion is for when articles cannot be verified and have little or no prospect of being so (paraphrased). This article never even had the sources flag added.--Gregalton 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you'll look now, I think all but one major statement in the article is either sourced, or directed to a more specific page - making it better than 90% of articles on Wikipedia. --Haemo 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks for that. Much appreciated. I'm now living without textbooks. Even without the references, it never really met the reasons for deletion.--Gregalton 08:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge As per others. --Remi 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of sources isn't a valid reason for deletion, unless we believe the article cannot be sourced, which judging by the responses above it clearly can be. JulesH 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: when can this flag be removed? Clearly there is no consensus that the article should be deleted, and the questions have been addressed.--Gregalton 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - how is this still open? We have a clear keep consensus.  --Haemo
 * 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.