Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis


 * 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   no consensus. I can see both sides of this and I'm sorry to say that my second reaction to seeing an article that doesn't look like an "article" is delete. (my first reaction is to check to see if it's a copyvio as many "non-articles" are) However, Uncle G does make a strong argument that this article can be fixed and others concur with that view so let's give it some time. Perhaps some of the editors here who !voted "keep" could help. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Post close comment. The article in question here was moved to The role of fair value accounting in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 and the redirect deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair-Value Accounting&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This appears to be an essay or other original research. Dohn joe (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is an essay consisting of original research and synthesis. The topic is not notable and does not exist in reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This topic is already covered in Mark-to-market accounting, and that is a better place for it, as a more neutral and better known title.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant WP:OR/WP:SYN. Ipsign (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yj10c, if you are reading this: You have yourself in part to blame for this. You've formatted and written your article quite badly for an encyclopaedia article.  You've given it the appearance of unecyclopaedicity by simply writing it in a way that isn't how encyclopaedia articles are written (in this or in other encyclopaedias).  It is, alas, unfortunately the case that Wikipedia editors judge articles on style over substance much more than they should. Having said that, the nominator and others are plainly wrong.  If this weren't a subject, we wouldn't have Mark-to-market accounting, which is a whole section of another article on this very thing, as Cullen328 spotted.  Clearly, this is not original research, and not a novel subject that doesn't exist outwith Wikipedia.  ( and  amply demonstrate that, even if it weren't demonstrated by what you've cited already.)  When Newt Gingrich wrote his piece in Forbes magazine in 2008  it provoked a lot of discussion &mdash; some of which discussion (e.g., , and ; as well as what you've badly cited in the article) can be used as source material for (at least two of the viewpoints to be covered by) an article on this subject, since it addresses it head on.  Yes, I for one have spotted that you're citing Thomas J. Linsmeier of the Financial Accounting Standards Board &mdash; who isn't exactly a random unidentifiable web-logger &mdash; writing about this subject. The problem is that you've made a really bad job of taking what the world has said about this subject and starting an encyclopaedia article on it.  Personally, I think it to be rescuable with ordinary editing tools, that every editor has.  There's enough material in the world to support a full, summary-style breakout, article on this.  Maybe someone will pick up the baton.
 * Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Following Uncle G (talk), I have tagged the article for lead missing, linkrot, uncategorized and wikify, because technically this is a very badly done article. It had no talk page templates, but I added them. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aren't necessary simply a Keep or Delete explaining why is fine  Jay Jay Talk to me 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wholly wrong. Simple voting is the antithesis of what we do here and is far from fine.  That's the sort of ridiculous statement that gives Wikipedia a bad name for a place where people's immediate reaction to being told that they are wrong is to try and pretend that one isn't allowed to point out where people are wrong.  Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G - two things. First, take a look at what JayJay actually called for. Not "simple voting", but "a Keep or Delete explaining why". That is what this discussion is all about. I appreciate that you're trying to help out the article creator, but their talkpage would be more appropriate for that. Second, I don't disagree with most of what you posted, and the creator has actually improved the article already. But before you call the participants here "plainly wrong", take a look at the condition of the article as I found it: . Tell me you wouldn't have nominated that article for deletion. It was nearly entirely unreferenced, and more to the point, did not even address the purported subject, aside from an unpopulated section title. This was a case of an editor moving an article out of user space too hastily. It's still borderline in my opinion, but if I had come across the article in its current shape I likely would not have nominated it. Please take the time to investigate the situation before you cast aspersions. Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Novices do read AFD discussions, and we are supposed not to bite them with single-word pretty much rationale-free votes like "Delete: Essay.".  This is the correct place to explain what's wrong, as per reams of prior AFD discussions over the years where novice article creators jump in with "Why won't you drive-by people explain what you think is wrong instead of these unhelpful boldface votes?" questions.  I've seen that happen hundreds of times. And no, I wouldn't have nominated that article for deletion.  As per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, I'd have researched it first to see what sources existed.  (I'd also have done some basic copyediting and wikification almost by reflex, fixing the section heading markup and adding a references section with reflist so that the  worked.  This is called collaborative editing and helping novices with the markup.)  I'd have been aided in this by the fact that actually that very revision of the article attempts to cite three sources.  Go and read it properly.  Look at the wikitext. Moreover, it's not hard to find  just by putting its title into a WWW search engine.  That would have been a big clue right there what more to look for.  (Indeed, it actually was.)  As an administrator, or even just an experienced editor, who helps other people and writes, I also know enough to look at the edit history.  The novice   with the Cite.php markup.  This is all mundane and routine stuff for a Wikipedia editor:  Look at the sources already cited.  Help people and collaborate.  Look for more sources. I suggest that you take your own medicine, because it applies to you, not to me.  Take the time to investigate.  You didn't do so and haven't done so; and you're wrong. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Following Uncle G (talk), I have tagged the article for lead missing, linkrot, uncategorized and wikify, because technically this is a very badly done article. It had no talk page templates, but I added them. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aren't necessary simply a Keep or Delete explaining why is fine  Jay Jay Talk to me 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wholly wrong. Simple voting is the antithesis of what we do here and is far from fine.  That's the sort of ridiculous statement that gives Wikipedia a bad name for a place where people's immediate reaction to being told that they are wrong is to try and pretend that one isn't allowed to point out where people are wrong.  Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G - two things. First, take a look at what JayJay actually called for. Not "simple voting", but "a Keep or Delete explaining why". That is what this discussion is all about. I appreciate that you're trying to help out the article creator, but their talkpage would be more appropriate for that. Second, I don't disagree with most of what you posted, and the creator has actually improved the article already. But before you call the participants here "plainly wrong", take a look at the condition of the article as I found it: . Tell me you wouldn't have nominated that article for deletion. It was nearly entirely unreferenced, and more to the point, did not even address the purported subject, aside from an unpopulated section title. This was a case of an editor moving an article out of user space too hastily. It's still borderline in my opinion, but if I had come across the article in its current shape I likely would not have nominated it. Please take the time to investigate the situation before you cast aspersions. Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Novices do read AFD discussions, and we are supposed not to bite them with single-word pretty much rationale-free votes like "Delete: Essay.".  This is the correct place to explain what's wrong, as per reams of prior AFD discussions over the years where novice article creators jump in with "Why won't you drive-by people explain what you think is wrong instead of these unhelpful boldface votes?" questions.  I've seen that happen hundreds of times. And no, I wouldn't have nominated that article for deletion.  As per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, I'd have researched it first to see what sources existed.  (I'd also have done some basic copyediting and wikification almost by reflex, fixing the section heading markup and adding a references section with reflist so that the  worked.  This is called collaborative editing and helping novices with the markup.)  I'd have been aided in this by the fact that actually that very revision of the article attempts to cite three sources.  Go and read it properly.  Look at the wikitext. Moreover, it's not hard to find  just by putting its title into a WWW search engine.  That would have been a big clue right there what more to look for.  (Indeed, it actually was.)  As an administrator, or even just an experienced editor, who helps other people and writes, I also know enough to look at the edit history.  The novice   with the Cite.php markup.  This is all mundane and routine stuff for a Wikipedia editor:  Look at the sources already cited.  Help people and collaborate.  Look for more sources. I suggest that you take your own medicine, because it applies to you, not to me.  Take the time to investigate.  You didn't do so and haven't done so; and you're wrong. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Closing administrator should note Uncle G's comments; which were the very reason for this relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 16:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is obviously notable and not OR - see Did Fair-Value Accounting Contribute to the Financial Crisis?, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy and Uncle G above. Warden (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Predicable ARS clutter, that is not a valid rationale to keep. All you did was find a similar thesis-like paper on a university website, that doesn't surpass WP:NOTESSAY. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You say university like it's a bad thing. That paper was written by two professors of economics and finance and has been published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.  The link is to the full article which saves going through paywalls and abstract digests.  Anyway, this disproves the point of the nomination which is that the topic is original.  See Google Scholar for hundreds more papers. Warden (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - An encyclopedia is neither a website to host one's personal point-of-view or a platform to publish a thesis paper. This is a prime example of the failure to guide new users; if this person had been more familiar with WP:N and WP:NOT, or time would not be wasted at AfD discussing something that clearly and unequivocally does not belong on this project. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The number of references on the topic prove that this is notable. Deficiencies in the way the article is written can be addressed by rewriting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It may be possible to have a notable and encyclopædic article with this title, but the title is the only thing it would share with the current article. Until that time, we're better off without the current editorial. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a small essay and part of the Late-2000s financial crisis, which has plenty of articles where some of this material can be added. Being a member of WP:ARS does not mean to always say Keep. There is no way I can see that this should be kept, even if all the numerous technical problems were corrected. The creator knows the subject matter, but a newbie editor often does not know Wiki techniques. We can provide some encouragement, without allowing this article to remain. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough coverage about this specific topic to make its own article separate from Subprime mortgage crisis.  D r e a m Focus  18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Sources show article is notable and not original research.   Th e S te ve   07:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep give me a break, an essay? All the links are too the Fair Accounting Standards Board (FASB). This nomination is the reason why deletions should be more difficult to initiate. Okip  00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It's an essay. Plain and simple. Essay's can have sources, but that doesn't make them encyclopedia articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. There seems to be plenty of material to cite on this topic; what's needed is someone who knows enough about this field to explain it clearly WP:IMPERFECT to those of us who are not economists. Also, BITE :) Trilliumz (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a specialized aspect of the general subject. Mark to market has a section on this, but comparing the two, the present article is fuller, clearer, and more informative. it does need a little rewriting to match our usual encyclopedic style--it looks a little too much like an essay. The main thing needed is a wider array of sources. There certainly are sufficient ones available--there's an immense literature, both popular and academic. .  DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 3 March 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.