Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme-Accounting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Extreme-Accounting

Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as the tag was added November 22, but it doesn't seem to have ever been placed on the main VfD page, and doesn't have a voting page. Procedural/Delete--not many hits, and appears to have been created by the owner of www.extreme-accounting.com (same first 6 digits of IP of website, and contributor). Niteowlneils 22:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete fvw* 23:09, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mentioned in a few blogs, but totally non-notable. David Johnson 23:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Another joke, but this one hasn't caught on. Geogre 00:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg 21:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Extreme-Accounting is meant to be lighthearted but is NOT just a joke. Niteowlneils is correct - I am both the creator of the Extreme-Accounting website and the contributor of this article but I am not using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Extreme-Accounting is a new but genuine sport and it is just as valid for there to be an article about it as for Extreme Ironing or any of the other fringe extreme sports already covered by the site. Extreme-Accounting is not a business and I do not gain financially by providing/maintaining the site or by trying to build awareness, popularity and participation. chiswicka 09:20, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)
Wikipedia is NOT a platform for promoting something new. You won't be seeing this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. If and when it becomes popular, it will qualify for Wikipedia, but not until then. David Johnson 12:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not using Wikipedia to promote the sport - simply to help make people aware of it and to provide a little information for those who are interested. I would have thought that one of the important advantages of Wikipedia is that it is not so slow to react or so hidebound as the Encyclopaedia Britannica in what it is able or willing to include. As for the question of popularity, that seems rather subjective - interest and participation in Extreme-Accounting is growing rapidly; also, the Extreme-Accounting website is already receiving thousands of unique hits each week and provoking plenty of media interest too. I say again - how is this article different to the ones describing other extreme sports? chiswicka 15:00, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)
So you believe that if the Encyclopedia Britannica was updated today, that they would include your "sport"? David Johnson 16:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would certainly hope so and if there's anybody out there from the good old EB reading this, then you're more than welcome to do just that! The point is that if you're going to cover trends in extreme sports then extreme-accounting is just as interesting, just as 'notable', just as good an example and just as worthy of inclusion. Arnold. chiswicka 17:05, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)
Google is a good way to find out how well-known a given topic is. Search for any other of the extreme sports listed on extreme sports and most of them get at least 1000 more hits than yours does. [The two that don't (extreme croquet and extreme wheelbarrow) I might start a vote on soon, along with another (extreme unicycling) which gets more hits than you, but I still don't think is notable]. Perhaps your sport is worthy of a mention on the extreme sports page, but it is the opinion of me (and everyone else who has voted and whose vote counts) that it isn't popular enough to have its own article. David Johnson 17:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but you're clearly the only one who's made the effort to consider the matter in any depth. I disagree with your conclusions and your deletionist stance but thank you very much for taking the time to back up your point of view. Arnold. chiswicka 09:05, 26 Nov 2004 (GMT)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 15:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: I came to this page because of the write up about extreme sports. Thats quite upfront - it says there are various 'jokey' extreme sports that have been invented. I liked the idea and I wanted to find out more; this gave it me. All the other's listed in the section have their own page and don't seem any more or less worth reading about... Panderson 19:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One of four contributions. Other three all on VfD candidates. Niteowlneils 16:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and counting (but not VfD ones now that I've got the hang of how to edit.) Do please keep up - perhaps you could focus all that excess energy on some sort of automatic counter to keep your sniping up to date. Panderson 19:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange that these new users... who just happened to join recently... and just happened to decide that the first thing they wanted to do was discuss the deletion of extreme-accounting all have the same idiosyncracy of not indenting their replies. Please stop creating sockpuppets, it is annoying and does your cause no particular good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it does your cause no particular good. Dpbsmith003. 19:50, 1 Apr 2007
He's right, you know. I just joined today 19:51, 1 Apr 2007
Dpbsmith is always right. Mr. Impartial Objective Neutral Outsider 19:52, 1 Apr 2007
Sockpuppetsesssss.... I hatessss 'em, I doesss! HosieryDepartment 19:53, 1 Apr 2007
Thanks for the tutorial in indentation, my life is enriched and my comments will now feel so much more significant and valid (although obviously not up to the rapier-like wittiness of the above). Panderson 11:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was at the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants Conference in London yesterday, and they were promoting Extreme Accounting. Many of the attendees, including myself, commented on how refreshing it was to have such a fun concept attributed to Accountancy. I get very frustrated with the stereotyping of our profession. Anything which helps to dispel this myth has my vote. Lizschofield 10:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Note. According to the CIMA Website[1], there was no conference held by them yesterday (not November 24, 25, or 26, in London or anywhere else). Niteowlneils 16:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As the event has passed, it has obviously been removed from the Event database on the CIMA website (as not many people wish to attend events the day before the date on which they are running the search). The event was held at The Congress Centre, central london. Details can be viewed at [2]. What an exciting world of conspiracies you boys must live in... Lizschofield 17:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lizschofield's only edits are to this page. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The cited reference [3] does not mention extreme-accounting. The page contains a link from which the conference programme can be downloaded. The programme file, programme.pdf, is dated August 25th, 2004. It does not contain any reference to any extreme-accounting event. If such an event took place, at CIMA please provide a valid reference that shows that it did. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dpbsmith seems more interested in writing than reading - as far as I can see Lizschofield doesn't say that it was an extreme accounting event but that it was a CIMA conference and that extreme accounting was being promoted there. Cue impeccably formatted and hilarious response - if we're really lucky we'll be treated to the same joke as used above and below again... Panderson 11:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It was cited as evidence for the existence of extreme-accounting. It doesn't even mention extreme-accounting, let alone promote it. Wikipedia articles must be Verifiable. Please provide some verifiable evidence that the sport is being played, promoted, and growing within accounting circles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, not in real use, not a real sport, original research. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus 18:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 20:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All the votes below are from users with no other contributions (yawn). Could an admin investigate and clean-up please? David Johnson 12:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The comment above seems to suggest that only votes from a small clique of existing "power" Wiki users have any validity. If that is the case, then why have a voting policy at all? Incidentally, the person who was trawling through new articles and picked on mine couldn't even be bothered to read your own instructions for nominating articles for deletion. It all smacks to me of mischief-making or Wiki-snobbery. chiswicka 15:00, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)

    • How fun it would be to get a bunch of people together from NYC, go visit a little town somewhere else around electiontime, and elect one of their own mayor. After all, only a snobbish clique of small town people wouldn't let them vote in a place where they're not a resident. --Improv 15:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • My comment means that I suspect all the users who left the below comments are one and the same person -- you. Of course I don't know this for a fact, which is why I asked an admin to investigate. Either way, votes from users with no other contributions don't count anyway for the reasons Improv mentions above. David Johnson 16:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As you yourself point out, chiswicka, even experienced Wikipedians sometimes don't have the grasp they should of the deletion policy. How likely is it, then, that Wikipedians without experience may also misunderstand the deletion policy and argue that an article should be kept for reasons that have nothing to do with the goals of Wikipedia? If I had a dime for every time I've seen someone argue that "X must have its own Wikipedia article, because X is a good thing!" I'd be living a life of ease. If these people don't realize that the goodness of the article's subject is irrelevant to whether it is encyclopedic or not, how can it be claimed that their votes represent an informed and committed desire to advance Wikipedia's goals? Surely even you can't truly believe that "the Wikipedians who can demonstrate they've been around more than a week" narrows the pool of valid voters down to "a small clique of existing 'power' Wiki users"... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's OK - your admin will discover that they are most certainly NOT from me. Whilst I hadn't seen the section about votes only being valid from users making multiple contributions I have read the section on Sock Puppets (love the cute cartoons)and I have neither the need nor the inclination to resort to them - not even pinstriped sock puppets! Sorry to disappoint you. Arnold. chiswicka 16:50, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)

  • I'm not at all disappointed; I'm glad you're not trying to subvert the VfD process. David Johnson 17:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

O.o Votes below here are the sock puppet ones, the ones above are just an argument. Yawn. Ambush Commander 16:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: Why would you want to delete this? I love the idea of accountants taking part in extreme sports. Great concept - well done. - Emma 'danger' Powers. powerse 10:24, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)
  • Keep: I love the feeling of the wind in my hair (or lack of it) whilst inputting key figures, we have extreme ironing, urban Housework and now extreme accounting. Sports have to start somewhere!!- Livin' Large livin' large 10:46, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)
  • Keep: Extreme accounting should certainly not be deleted, particularly when other equally bizarre extreme sports will still have a place here. I'm sure it won't long before everyone is familiar with the term -let's give it a chance!
  • Keep: Extreme accounting should certainly not be deleted, particularly when other equally bizarre extreme sports will still have a place here. I'm sure it won't long before everyone is familiar with the term -let's give it a chance!