Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accounting Hall of Fame

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 keep. --Stormie (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting Hall of Fame[edit]

Accounting Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable organization. Despite its grandiose name, there are no independent sources to verify the notability of this body. The article is largely a listing of red links, which the author claims will be remedied "over time." The article appears to be a coat rack on which to justify articles about its members; that is, the existence of this article justifies the existence of the others. There are a few Google hits, largely links to Ohio State pages or a few press-release type pages, nothing more. The author's tone is too promotional as well, and promotion seems to be the main purpose of the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I regret saying, in my first talk page response to Realkyhick, that having the article on Accounting Hall of Fame was "essential" (my poor wording) to establishing the notability of individuals listed. Clearly, the articles for individuals have to stand on their own merits. Having received the award, however, can be one indication of an individual's notability, whether or not there is a wikipedia article on the award. Having the wikipedia article is useful though, as the inductees of this award are an interesting list of notable non-academic accountants as well as very notable academics. I imagine that browsing this list, when it is further developed, can be of interest to aspiring accountants and others. doncram (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The institution may not be widely known but a simple Google search (excluding Wikipedia and OSU) returns a few thousand hits. Reading a couple of those pages, my feeling would be that it passes the notability test. I do agree that the article needs the {{Unreferenced}} and {{POV}} tags though. --Kimontalk 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My own Google search on "Accounting Hall of Fame" (with quote marks, which is very important) returned nowhere near that many hits, at least those that were relevant. Again, my fear is that not only is the hall not notable enough, but the article is being used as a coat rack to establish notability for its members, most of whom would not likely be notable otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reponse - Did you click on the link I provided? Could you please provide your search link? --Kimontalk 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would not object to it having a tag regarding referencing. I note that other awards in the similar fields of economics such as the Michael Brennan Award, the Frisch Medal, and Jensen Prize are similar in that they are mostly red-links and that the only source is the body giving the award, and these do not have referencing tags. The T. S. Ashton Prize, by contrast, does have a referencing tag. See Category:Economics Awards for list of these and others. I begin to think it could be a general problem, how to establish the relative merits of various awards. While there are many academic studies rating the relative importance of journals, I am not aware of academic studies that rate the importance of various awards. doncram (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Also, I note there are lots and lots of awards in the Category:Award stubs not tagged and not marked for deletion. Why attack this one? The fear that I would use the article as a "coat rack" is a colorful argument but not compelling, as each article about an individual does have to stand on its own. doncram (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I just haven't gotten to the others yet. This one — actually, the article for one of the inductees — stuck out in the New Articles list that I was monitoring. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: For others, FYI, the article you first marked was my one sentence version of Katherine Schipper, which someone else immediately unmarked, and which i since expanded somewhat.
  • Keep per Kimon. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An honest google search (with quotes) shows almost no recognition of this outside its founding institution. The article makes plenty of OR assertions about prestige and notability without ever actually showing any information to back them up. This articles main use seems to be creating an argument for notability for many of its members which would otherwise not have any.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Per my comment above, the award can be one argument for an individual's notability, but having the award article is not needed to use receipt of award in asserting an individual's notability. The list of inductees is an interesting list. doncram (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, maybe. Notable, far from it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these Google News hits seem usable, particularly the Philadelphia Inquirer article about the place. Zagalejo^^^ 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added significantly to the article, including adding the Philadelphia Inquirer quip, but more importantly adding documentation of American Accounting Association recognition of the award and information from a Journal of Accounting Research article about the award. Please take another look now. doncram (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify. Get rid of the cruft -- the table with all those red links -- and add more cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep the table--the red links are articles that need to be written, since their award probably indicates notability . DGG (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. A Google news search seems to indicate notability for the hall of fame although the articles are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (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/Accounting_Hall_of_Fame&oldid=1137536699"