Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)[reply]

Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant WP:OR/WP:SYN. Ipsign (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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#Effect on subprime crisis and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 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. (Amel-Zadeh & Meeks 2011 and Laux & Leuz 2009 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 (Gingrich 2008) it provoked a lot of discussion — some of which discussion (e.g. Martinez 2009, p. 281–283, Wesbury 2009, p. 87–99,115–116, and Srote 2011, p. 152–157; 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 — who isn't exactly a random unidentifiable web-logger — 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.

    • Gingrich, Newt (2008-09-29). "Suspend Mark-To-Market Now!". Forbes.
    • Martinez, Mark Anthony (2009). The myth of the free market: the role of the state in a capitalist economy. Kumarian Press. ISBN 9781565492677.
    • Wesbury, Brian S. (2009). It's Not as Bad as You Think: Why Capitalism Trumps Fear and the Economy Will Thrive. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 9780470238332.
    • Srote, Robert A. (2011). Wildfire: The Legislation That Ignited the Great Recession. Tate Publishing. ISBN 9781617392832.
    • Amel-Zadeh, Amir; Meeks, G. (2011-11-01). Bank Failure, Mark-to-Market and the Financial Crisis. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1494452. S2CID 154598628.
    • Laux, Christian; Leuz, Christian (2009-10-12). "Did Fair-Value Accounting Contribute to the Financial Crisis?". doi:10.2139/ssrn.1487905. S2CID 154990605.
  • Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal attacks aren't necessary simply a Keep or Delete explaining why is fine JayJayTalk to me 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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: [1]. 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)[reply]

        • 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#What to do, 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 <ref>...</ref> 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 an abstract of the Linsmeier source 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 clearly had trouble several times 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fair-Value_Accounting%27s_Role_in_the_Subprime_Mortgage_Crisis&oldid=1170693967"