Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

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 delete. Mr.Z-man 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - we are not a repository for personal book reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope that there's a website for this kind of material somewhere, but Wikipedia certainly isn't it as it's clearly not encyclopedic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm really suspecting that all these "Annotated Bibliography" things are by the same editor using sockpuppets, single purpose accounts or a combonation of the two. These all are Personal essays by someone (or multiple someones) using Wikipedia as their publisher of original thought Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you noticed the "About the Author" paragraphs at the bottom of some of these? Clearly a class project at the University of Florida, suggested by an instructor who is unfamiliar with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. By the way, delete. Deor (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was right! It is a class project! I don't know many teachers who'd do this (maybe someone who's a novice in the ways of Web 2.0), but this definitely isn't what Wikipedia is for. You can also add page ownership to the list of offenses of these bibliographies. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. There's no obligation to keep this in any form, the author should have known better. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research / synthesis. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, essay, Wikipedia is not free webspace, and so on. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" articles, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]

Delete per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:28, 19 April 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.