Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of accounting law

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 13:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of accounting law


Outline started in 2007 related to accounting law which isn't even an article. It doesn't make sense to create an outline when there is no topic to outline. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep . Work in progress, or the records of a WikiProject.  These are all best left for the WikiProject members to work with.  I see that User:The Transhumanist is still working on outline articles.  Stop interfering with his work by drawing his attention to the least important things.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What project? There's no article about accounting law. There is no WikiProject about accounting law. There is no such thing as accounting law so again, how can one create an outline out of something that doesn't exist? The only project is that someone wrote up a list of outlines they wanted to create and suggested an outline for something that doesn't exist. The project's local consensus that the subject exists does not trump the remainder of the encyclopedia that the subject exists. Accounting works by standardized principles and regulatory authorities providing opinions not laws per se. Laws exist about violations of the principles being US GAAP regulations but that's not accounting law by any stretch of the imagination. Any outline about accounting law is meaningless since there are no accounting laws articles to outline. Other than an empty skeleton created in 2007 and a listing on a wikiproject this has not been improved in almost nine years because there is nothing that can be created here. What is the point of waiting another few years to see if someone has created an article for this non-existent topic and then see if someone wants to create an outline to follow it? Or can you admit that an outline is not needed for a topic that doesn't exist nor will ever exist? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The project is WikiProject:Outlines.
 * There's no article about accounting law. Apparently that's true.  It must be a missing article, because it certainly does exist in the real world.  Maybe this is a benefit of Outlines, they help reveal missing articles.  In any case, that is a conversation that you should have had with the author before bringing it to MfD.
 * You ask a lot of questions, and while I don't have immediate answers, the questions look answerable, and the questions are certainly not slam dunk rhetoricals supporting deletion. Then you make assertions that aren't really relevant, but suffice to say that I disagree that "accounting law" does not exist.
 * There has not been a lot of improvement because there are not very many editors actively working on Outlines. This is not a reason for deletion.  The project is not complete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't exist. There is no legal basis for accounting. It's not taxation, it's not reporting, it's not a legal system. The fact that someone erroneously started an outline almost a decade ago and can't add to it because nothing exists does not mean we should keep this around on the bet that the one sole person at the Outlines projects figured out something that the business/accounting and other projects never did in a decade. There is no accounting law by country, no category, no project, nothing because the concept does not exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, while I don't accept "It doesn't exist", your and others insistence is noted, I can agree it is not a good title for a topic, "Accountancy and law" might be better, although that sounds bad, like an intersection topic, and per Johnbod, the topic, if it is a good topic, is probably only well approached from within specific jurisdictions, whether national or state. With regard to records of WikiProject Outlines, the resulting redlink on that page is probably sufficient.  The page being deleted, despite a lot of edits, contains no content.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Financial statements, taxation and GAAP are covered at Draft:Outline of accounting because it exists. I could sit at my desk and make up a hundred different ways of reporting my finances. It's not a violation of law until I either use that to the IRS (because it's a violation of tax law) or to the public (which is a violation of securities laws). Let's put it this way: if an accountant reports entirely correctly to the IRS and the SEC but keeps a separate set of books that aren't in compliance, there is no "law" that is being violated. It would be a violation of accounting principles and their duty of care likely but it's not a violation of any accounting law. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral on the page, at the moment. Just pointing out that the relevant subject WikiProject is the Accounting task force of WikiProject Business. I'm leaning towards agreeing with Ricky but I'll leave a note for the task force in case someone else has a more nuanced counter-opinion. Ivanvector 🍁  (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is Draft:Outline of accounting which is what matters. It's precisely because there is nothing for this topic that I suggested deleting this one rather than moving it to draftspace like I did for accounting. Both should be tagged with the proper projects so their alerts will pick it up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopeless case - there's really no such thing as "accounting law", and the laws, rules and standards that might make it up vary hugely between countries. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. To the best of my knowledge, there really isn't a recognized field of "accounting law" (at least not in the United States). Although the regulation of financial institutions often requires accurate and truthful accounting, I don't think it's fair to describe this as "accounting law" per se. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this hasn't been touched for over a year, there's no notability, it's just an outline. Kosh Vorlon   13:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment- Noting that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is the org that seems to be consistently involved in investigating this sort of thing, (note mentions in Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Enron scandal, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States), as well as here, perhaps the issue of how accounting relates to law is related to how the law relates to securities and exchange. An article about "accounting and the law" would work way better than the term "accounting law". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except we aren't discussing an actual article, we're discussing an outline for which there is no article. Draft:Outline of accounting already covers securities and taxation along with auditing because it relates to accounting overall. Why go though all this effort to create an outline that won't have a main article and that will just be cobbling together subjects because someone nine years ago came up with the title? Shouldn't a bare minimum for an outline be that we have an actual subject that we are outlining? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.