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)[reply]

Price Overide

Price Overide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Alt:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• 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. Pinging (TheGreatWikiLord—Spinningspark—SwisterTwister) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Yes, naturally move it to Price override. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 [1][2]. SpinningSpark 13:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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. SpinningSpark 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• I am confused that you linked to Wikipedia:Notability (events) before, it has no bearing in this case, and now you link to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Notability has been established and no successful arguments for deletion have been advanced for this apparently common term in accounting and economics.

Cite journal

• Perry, William E. (2010). "Concurrent EDP Auditnig an Early Warning Scheme". EDPACS. 1 (8): 1–7. doi:10.1080/07366987409450112. ISSN 0736-6981.
• Perez, Darrin (2015). "What Comes Next": 187–215. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-1040-6_10. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Anitsal, Ismet; Schumann, David (2007). "Toward a Conceptualization of Customer Productivity: The Customer's Perspective on Transforming Customer Labor into Customer Outcomes Using Technology-Based Self-Service Options". The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 15 (4): 349–363. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679150405. ISSN 1069-6679.
• and mentioned in many more

Cite news

• "Two Walmart employees accused of fraud". Highlandstoday.com. Retrieved 2015-10-05.
• "Store's failure reveals alleged employee thefts | Regional news". wiscnews.com. 2014-11-14. Retrieved 2015-10-05.
• and mentioned in many more

Cite book

• Advanous (1 January 2004). Price for Success: A Practical Guide for Improving Margins in Wholesale Distribution. Natl Assn Wholesale-Distr. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-1-934014-01-1.
• Sudarshan Seshanna. Retail Management. McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited. pp. 692–. ISBN 978-93-392-0307-8.
• Lev Mirlas (21 August 2009). Multisite Commerce: Proven Principles for Overcoming the Business, Organizational, and Technical Challenges. Pearson Education. pp. 526–. ISBN 978-0-13-703420-8.
• John Robert Wyman (1999). Loss Prevention and the Small Business: The Security Professional's Guide to Asset Protection Strategies. Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 114–. ISBN 978-0-7506-7162-0.
• Donald J. Horan (27 November 1996). The Retailer's Guide to Loss Prevention and Security. CRC Press. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-0-8493-8110-2.
• Richard Halter (January 2014). ARTS for Retail. iUniverse. pp. 165–. ISBN 978-1-4917-1552-9.
• Simon Wright; Diane McCrea (15 April 2008). The Handbook of Organic and Fair Trade Food Marketing. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 203–. ISBN 978-0-470-99608-9.
• The SEC Speaks in ... Practising Law Institute. 2008.
• Kornel Terplan (12 March 2003). Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment. CRC Press. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-0-203-00941-3.
• Terrance J. O'Malley; John H. Walsh (2013). Investment Adviser's Legal and Compliance Guide. Aspen Publishers Online. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-4548-3849-4.
• Bill Wise Cpp (December 2008). Competitive Advantage-Fixing Small Business Security and Safety Problems. Bill Wise CPP. pp. 150–. ISBN 978-0-578-00469-3.
• Annabelle Ruston (7 January 2009). Framing and Presenting Textile Art. A&C Black. pp. 144–. ISBN 978-0-7136-8808-5.
• Chris Carroll; Samuel Kay (7 December 2011). Investment Funds: Jurisdictional Comparisons. Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 455–. ISBN 978-1-908239-08-2.
• Yogesh K. Dwivedi; Helle Zinner Henriksen; David Wastell (22 June 2013). Grand Successes and Failures in IT: Public and Private Sectors: IFIP WG 8.6 International Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, TDIT 2013, Bangalore, India, June 27-29, 2013, Proceedings. Springer. pp. 546–. ISBN 978-3-642-38862-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[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.