Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New old stock

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 Kept. Essjay (Talk) 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New old stock

New old stock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - article is duplicate of inventory. In accounting there is no such term as "New old stock". Just use #REDIRECT to "Inventory". Octopus-Hands 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It may not be a formal accounting term, but it's in common use. A google search comes up with 565,000 hits. Among the top few are [1], [2], and [3]. There is nothing in inventory which discusses the concept, so a plain redirect would be inappropriate. It might make sense to merge the two articles, and then leave a redirect behind, but I think it's a reasonable enough topic to stand on its own. Full disclosure: I'm the article's original creator. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - As an accountant I can vouch that this group of words is not "Accounting Terminology" Octopus-Hands 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the problem is just that somebody put it into Category:Accountancy. If the objection is that it's not an accounting term, then the solution might be to just re-catagorize it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I recategorized this to fall into categories of auction terms rather than accounting. Tubezone 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree, it's not an accounting term, but it is in wide use, and sort of a point of controversy as with really old stuff it's sometimes difficult to tell what's new old stock and what's just used and cleaned up. If there's an objection to this the objection should be that without some expansion it's basically a dicdef. Tubezone 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close as merge and redirect to Inventory. I have already merged in the first paragraph (the rest fails WP:OR as unsourced but can be added if sources are cited}. This was always going to remain a stub as a stand alone article. BlueValour 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes sense, but I don't see the need for speedy action. ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 17 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.