Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

This page was nominated for "Prod" deletion on 11 Sep 2006 with the reason
This is fairly incomprehensible, and the talk page is basically an advertisement. Based on the amount of html previously in the article and still currently, it is likely a copied from somewhere.
The page was deleted 7 days after its nomination under PROD. The deletion was contested on 21 Sep at WP:DRV. It has been restored and is nominated here as a procedural matter. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The redirect CAFR is related. Whether the article is kept or deleted, the redirect should follow the same fate. Rossami (talk)
  • Stubify This is a valid topic but the article is complete crap. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • you said it! It is a valid topic and to censor this would be to participate in the literal cover up of the issue. So Stubify it, put up "wikistandard"s disclaimers, whatever. The article could be better sourced. Having talked with Walter Burien and Gerald R. Klatt(USAF retired). My impression is they would like to see links to their site on here as well as government addresses for the imfamous CAFR reports for all over the country. Klatt's www.cafrman.com has these but they are from 2003.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Though the report is a real report, I'm not convinced that it is notable enough for its own article. There's no reference to "CAFRs" on major news sites, and the references listed in this article appear to be personal websites with a strong bias. The Google hits don't mean much to me either, since "CAFR" as an acronym can have multiple meanings. So I recommend deleting this article, or possibly merging it into something else relating to State Government spending. --Elonka 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I get 2133 Newsbank news hits for "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report". This is a quite ubiquitous document in public finance. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's not impossible that this could be made into a real article, but almost none of the current material would be usable for the purpose. I don't think we should wait around patiently for people with a strong POV to come up with something that would make sense to a neutral economist. Best to delete. EdJohnston 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is a typical example of knee jerk anti conspiracy theory bias of wikipedians, these documents are verifiable and do exist. It is not significant at all that acording to Burien's research that numerous news outlets and public officials recieve a copy of many CAFR's reports from the local water and school public corporations to the several state and general government reports and do not do reports on these government holdings? Yall's nose for cooruption potential isnt itching at all? Jessie Ventura's political career is punctuated by his releasing some of Minnisota's government surplusses held outside the budgetary set of books. The Potential for cronie investment shuffeling should be obvious to even a 6th grader. I.E. guide investments to support your friends politically. If you don't know the investments exist in the first place you dont know to look for the deal making and the stategic investments BTW tally up the institutional investment in big companies like Health insurance, Motorola, IBM and MICROSOFT - 60-85% government owned, that is supposedly not Musellini's Corporatism? The artical needs a NPOV, shure, but these issues HAVE to be mentioned or you end up with a bias of ommission problem. Living in the world's remaining superpower you have to demand "show me the money"! Failure to understand these issues is tantamount to crossing the steet when you see a woman getting raped or a mugging in your path and not even dialing 911. I am only left with the two possibilities either there is intentional ignorance of this topic or a lack of ability to grasp the concepts of government surpluss assets. I dont know what else to say except you'll get the govenment you deserve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 21:55, October 1, 2006
(Comment to anon editor) The main problem with this article is that much of it appears to be what's called original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Something cannot appear on Wikipedia unless it is has already been published in outside credible sources (personal websites and blogs don't count), which prove that this subject is notable. In other words, it's not enough to prove that the report exists, you have to show that outside sources believe that the report is important. There are thousands of different government forms out there, and the case that needs to be made (in my opinion) is that this report is individually important. If credible references can be provided, I might be willing to change my mind on this article. For more information, please review the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. --Elonka 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've stubified the article and repeatedly removed a set of crap and spam links, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics asking for input, to no avail. I have no interest in babysitting this article, and with the current lack of interest from qualified editors I'm pretty certain it will go back to spam/soapbox status in no time as soon as this AfD is over. So I'm amending my vote opinion to Delete unless someone is willing to keep this article on their watchlist and make sure those links stay out. ~ trialsanderrors 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is just the proverbial second set of books outside the budgetary process. If you cant see why that is the most significant report of any divison of government then we are doomed as a country. Some of you seem so averse to conspiracy "theory" that if something sounds like one, you trash it even when the proof is hidden in plain sight. I fail to see why the Gerald R. Klatt sites cannot be included, he isnt selling anything and provides links to all the CAFR's that are analysed even if they are abit old. (2003) Some of the newer State CAFR's are difficult to locate (on purpose). When government entities cry we need to raise taxes cause spending is over the budget THIS is the ammo to hit them with; we know how much is in the CAFR ! Sell some stock and surplusses(far above the required assets to back pensions and bonds et c.) There are tonnes of short blurb articals on wikipedia that I have run accross and none of them have to have to be on "watchlists" that I am of aware of. So Walter Burien might end up selling a videotape or two because someone found out that there really is CAFR reports out there. Since he HISTORICALLY re-discovered this accounting trick and exposed it to the world (through AM talk radio in New Jersey) How bout someone put up a biography on the guy; I would but it would last about 2 hours and that is beiing optamystic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 23:16, October 4, 2006
Because they're far away from reliable sources and smack quite a bit of soapbox. If you know any useful sources, e.g. from government websites, that explain CAFR's, that would help the article significantly. Weblinks from "CAFRman" don't. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 5 October 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.