Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G&A


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

G%26A
The page contains a single valueless sentence, is linked to from nowhere, and does not appear to be a description of a well recognized term that people would want defined. Pmetzger 19:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The term is well-recognized and appears on every earnings statement of almost every company. However, it is a dicdef, and a poor one at that. Delete. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Either move to Wiktionary or merge with a list of financial terms or an explanation of annual reports. Andrew pmk | Talk 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge . Wot Andrew said. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What is there to "merge" here? The article contains one sentence, badly written. As for the financial term, it is (apparently) GA&O, and it is not per se a term from annual reports but is rather an accounting term. Note again that this page is so devistatingly popular that it has exactly zero other pages linking to it. --Pmetzger 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete then, per Pmetzger. Unless anyone can persuade me that it should be a redirect? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:03, 10 November 2005 (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.