Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price Overide


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Price Overide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references, and no claims to notability. This is more of an WP:Essay So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete . WP:HOWTO, WP:NOTESSAY. The term certainly appears to be in use in commerce and an article might be possible, but this is not it. Blow it up and start over. SpinningSpark 01:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I suppose as this looks better now. Delete as Books and browser found a few links but I'm not seen ng anything for improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Alt:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Obviously a typo in the article title here, should be Price override. I could honestly not make heads or tails of the /Theft/ section, so I have stubbed it to a one-liner. The term is new to me, but appears to be common in accounting and economics. I have slightly WP:OVERCITEd to show that. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as a stub. If it stays like that I would favour moving to the corrected spelling. SpinningSpark 14:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, naturally move it to Price override. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Price override per my above comments: the term is common and is easily referenced with reliable sources found to verify notability. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * comment: It now merely looks like a definition than an article. IMHO i don't think that this is an article worth of encyclopedic inclusion. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most stubs start out as just a definition, or little more than that. The question for AfD is whether or not it is capable of being expanded into a decent article from reliable sources.  In my opinion it is; this book and this one discuss it at length.  One can even find book sources that discuss the theft issue associated with price overrides . SpinningSpark 13:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nom's statement "i don't think that this is an article worth of encyclopedic inclusion." is purely personal point-of-view that should be avoided, cf. WP:BELONG. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it may be my lack of imagination, but I am not seeing how this can ever expand to be an article worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is discussed in a textbook is not criteria enough for inclusion. Suppose you presented 2 news articles from ?WSJ saying that price override led to a ?2.1% decrease in anticipated revenue, that would be different story. for me textbook alone is not enough is this case. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, textbooks are one of the most acceptable sources for establishing notability of a subject. According to our reliable sources guideline "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."  You appear not to have heard that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but in any case, the phrase is coming up in gnews items if you care to look. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete article but keep information. I never said Wikipedia is news. News was just an example of what would have established notability. Both of the examples show that "price overrides" was mentioned once in each book. I do not think that this coverage is in depth enough to establish notability. I am not convinced that this deserves an article in an encyclopedia. I am, however, in favor of adding this information to Shrinkage_(accounting). I believe that would be more encyclopedic than its own article. Thank you. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nom missed the spelling error. That and their subsequent comments begs the question: what kind of searches were performed prior to nomination? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For argument's sake, I will admit that my command of the English language is between poor and horrible. I'm sorry, but Personal attacks do not establish notability. Please try to stay on topic. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am confused that you linked to Notability (events) before, it has no bearing in this case, and now you link to No personal attacks saying you think that notability has not been established? The lack of answer to my question "what kind of searches were performed prior to nomination" leaves me with the impression that no due diligence was performed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 22:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * we are moving off topic. I have edited my previous comment. I have nothing further to say. Please try to establish the notability of the topic as oppose to questioning what I am or am not capable of. Thank you. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability has been established and no successful arguments for deletion have been advanced for this apparently common term in accounting and economics.


 * Cite journal
 * and mentioned in many more
 * and mentioned in many more
 * and mentioned in many more
 * and mentioned in many more


 * Cite news
 * and mentioned in many more
 * and mentioned in many more
 * and mentioned in many more


 * Cite book
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.
 * and 100s more.


 * Asking if the mandatory WP:BEFORE was performed in this case is neither irrelevant to the nomination nor is it a personal attack. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Not seeing any reason to delete this as the worst case is obviously merger into an article such as Pricing per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2015 (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.