Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operating expense

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. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operating expense

Operating expense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article unsourced since origination in 2004. Foggy Morning (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. As with Income statement, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable accounting topic (with plenty of incoming links and versions in other languages). Sure, it could use some references, but that's not a reason for deletion (see WP:DEL). Klausness (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggest delete per WP:NOR. Unverified article contents. --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this original research? The only problem I see here is missing references. "Unverified article contents" is not a deletion reason. WP:V says that article contents must be verifiable, not that they must be verified. Unverified but verifiable article contents are a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Similar situation to Income statement. The may have original research or be missing sources but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion only depends on notability/verfiability, not to be confused with as Klausness points out, with verified. GizzaDiscuss © 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per comments by others: does not meet criteria for deletion. Perhaps the nominator wishes to start a new process, articles for improvement, and set up a bot to flag all articles.--Gregalton (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles about business subjects — at least, articles that aren't about dodgy neologisms and are written in concrete, intelligible English — strike me as somewhat scarce, and deserving of every encouragement. They aren't really exciting, so it's unsurprising that it's gotten few edits since 2004. Sourcing requirements were nowhere near as specific then as they are today. No reason to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no doubting the notability of the article, and it is capable of being referenced. All it needs is for someone to take the time and add citations. AnthonyUK (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (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.