Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Income statement


 * 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. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Income statement

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

Article unsourced since 2003 Foggy Morning (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: the reason stated above does not meet any of the reasons for deletion - see WP:Deletion_policy. Only article that cannot possibly be sourced, or for which all attempts have failed, meet those criteria. This article is definitely a candidate for improvement, but not for deletion.--Gregalton (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Source it or delete it, Gregalton. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A fairly well written article on an obviously worthy subject, whose chief defect was to have been begun when we were less careful about sourcing than we are now.  -
 * How do you know if its accurate if it's unsourced?--Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I don't see any legitimate deletion rationale here.  This is a notable and encyclopedic topic, and the article has many incoming links (as well as versions in 27 other languages).  Klausness (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an important topic with incoming langauge links. But is it accurate and correct?--Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to review WP:DEL. Not having reliable sources is 'not a deletion reason.  "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed" is the closest thing at WP:DEL, and that definitely doesn't apply to this article. Klausness (talk)


 * Wikify and Keep - I satisfies WP:N I'm sure that it can be sourced... I'm not even going to look as there will be millions of articles, news, blogs etc...etc...on this subject.  It just needs to be inproved.  --Pmedema (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it hasn't been improved for YEARS. And it might well contain some very inaccurate information. It's not clear.  Why keep it? --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Klausness (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but sources would be nice. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Do a quick search and you'll find lots of sources.  Should have been tagged appropriately, not nominated for deletion.  I suggest nominator review deletion policy, specifically DEL and BEFORE.  Celarnor Talk to me  19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a basic accounting topic - if it's deleted now, someone's simply going to have to create it again at some point. The current text needs a lot of work, but it does provide some useful basic information. It seems better to fix what we have, than to scrap it completely and start from scratch. EastTN (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand that makes this article so beyond redemption that it needs deleting. If the nominator feels the article needs sources, I'd encourage him to be bold and fix it. AnthonyUK (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, important business topic, just needs cites not deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR. This article is a mess and is an embarassment to wikipedia. But allow recreation if somebody wishes to source it.  Yahel  Guhan  01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Yahel Guhan. The information is a mess and is unsourced and an embarassment to Wikipedia. I agree WP:NOR applies here. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that an article is unverified just isn't a reason to delete it.  If you don't like the article's current contents, reduce it to a stub or something--since this would be quickly recreated if it were deleted (and it won't be) that would give you the same outcome without this totally useless afd.P4k (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy/Strong Keep WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS are not satisfactory reasons for deletion. 95% of articles on Wikipedia would be deleted if that were the case. I encourage the nominator to understand and read Wiki's deletion policies, which revolve mainly around WP:NOTABILITY. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 06:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that nom has also nominated Operating expense for deletion. That also seems to be an acceptable article that's just missing references. Klausness (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Improve: I nominate this article. And every other one.--Gregalton (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is notable and should be kept, improved and correctly sourced. Lachambre (talk) 11:30, 25 April 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.