Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVESTA computing issues

Add links
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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AVESTA computing issues[edit]

AVESTA computing issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable article. The title refers to a company; however, the content refers to a description of accounting theory. I cannot find anything that supports this theory under this name. At worst appears to be a hoax used to create an article under a company name at best original research. reddogsix (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have not been able to find anything on the web about AVESTA computing issues but the original article was created by User:Fesaconsolidation. FESA Cnsolidation is a product of Flex systems limited] out of Hong Kong. The one IP that has edited the article is from Hong Kong. It appears to be promotion for something. GB fan 15:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See whether the administrator can rename the previous user name in order to avoid confusion.
The essay in fact do not include any product name but mention different information system initiatives. The is everyday life of observation and academic study for a very long time knowing both professional accountant and business analyst are struggling in data manipulation despite their organizations are implementing a highly business process automation system as business environment are changing very fast. These automated systems are becoming reducing the useful life.
All these are fact finding despite the documentation cannot be found or copied from the internet. In addition this documentation can be valuable for affected recipients so that they can have quickly access the big picture of the issues concern. Please consider to retain this documentation and suggest any change specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, I will try to cite more reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article when the topic of AVESTA is not a new, it is merely to summarize of fact.
Also remove some suspect term related to Flexsytem such as Finance Computing Framework. And add some famous solution providers such as Oracle Hyperion, Cognos, OutlookSoft, Business Objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.81.64 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought it was a but WP:SOAP at first, but it's evolved into a much better article now. I agree with reddogsix that at the moment it appears to be WP:OR, but this may just be because of a lack of reliable sources. Is there any way we can get a user familiar with financial stuff to comment on the notability/mainstreamness of this article's topic? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, I can provide guidance. These are not issues, but very, very general business procedures. There is nothing notable about the processes and it reads more like a guidebook of basic business processes than an article. The term AVESTA has no accepted accounting definition. reddogsix (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some of configuration works relevant to resolve these AVESTA computing issues. And try to do something later to avoid reader perceive it as guidebook. AVESTA is merely the abbreviation of common accepted computing terms when these computer term in turn to support the work of accounting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add "correlate with an evolution and diffusion of end-user computing" provide support that stimulate demand for information compare with mainframe ages before year 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerating demand for insightful information when management believe these end-user computing "can-do", => more computing issues triggered as summarized in six issues of AVESTA computing issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We can probably quibble about whether to call this promotional or original research or what have you. But the bottom line is that this article isn't supported by reliable sources, because reliable sources in accounting and computer science don't use AVESTA as a term. A fairly tightly targeted search reveals only Wikipedia, false positives, and sites related to FlexSystem Limited; they're the only source for this material. Similar Book and Scholar searches reveal nothing at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so the key problem is the term "AVESTA" itself, will try to rename with notable source when the content itself is not a new, all around the computing issues for highly demand accounting environment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.131.135 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree to delete when the AVESTA cannot find notable source directly as it is abbreviation of six business term. and I have created a new page management reporting that can be find notable source. so please delete directly without like it to the new page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to spend a little time reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies. The problem with this article wasn't the single word AVESTA, it's that it is original research. There are reliable sources that use the various terms you are using, to be certain. But claiming that those ideas can be put together to form an identifiable topic? There don't seem to be sources for that, and that means we cannot have an article like this. I notice you've created Management Reporting by copying and pasting most of the content from this article. In the likely case that this article gets deleted, there's actually a speedy deletion criterion (G4) that will let an administrator quickly delete that, too. Giving it a new name doesn't solve the problem (and for the record, searches for even a few of the terms aren't any better than they were when searching for AVESTA; reliable sources simply do not cover this material in this manner). Also, I notice the most recent comment here and the new article creation were by a new user, User:Mgt88drcr as opposed to the earlier User:Elim13579. As you are doing the same sort of things, and communicate in a very similar manner, you may wish to read the policy on use of multiple accounts. In short: you shouldn't do that, especially in a situation like this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reading some of the rules knowing that all posted document must have notable source, agree to delete both documents but do not know how to delete these document. I will try to learn how to write a good document with following rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Apart from a game of buzzword bingo, just what is this? It's a series of descriptive sentences that each make some sort of rational, albeit low-content statement. However it's completely unclear as to just what they're supposed to be applicable to. The scope of this article is unintelligible, almost to CSD level. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • of course want to delete this article but no way to do so, not knowing why the system restore the deleted article Mgt88drcr (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits didn't delete the article (i.e. remove it), they merely blanked its content and left an empty article behind. If you wish to delete it, and you're the only author, then you could add the WP:CSD#U1 template to it like this: {{db-u1}}
Andy Dingley (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above if we cannot get a speedy. Also related in some way perhaps would be Multiway Data Analysis. Hard to tell since I cannot tell what it is talking about either. Note in English capital letters would indicate a proper noun, such as a specific product from a specific company. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiway Data Analysis isn't an article, but it is a topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon drafting a new article titled Multiway Data Analysis starting from a set of notable sources, suggest let me more time to rewrite A-V-E-S-T-A computing issues in a way that can have more direct notable sources when I believe I am not capable to invent something, all these are common phenomenon in finance and accounting field when I have been working in this field for over 20+ years - no great news there, mainly to uncover the very old news. Need more time to locate some of notable sources matched with rewrited content. Thanks for comment again.Mgt88drcr (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi administrators, I have spent extra effort in past few days to rewrite this article with matching relevant notable sources, despite it is not perfect at this moment as not all notable sources are derived from academic books and research papers. Please have a review whether the current version can fit for the wiki minimum requirements (to exempt from deletion). Coming weeks I will busy to clear some of routine works so I may not have spare time during office hours to invest further works on this article. May be spend sometime during evening time on this.Mgt88drcr (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's looking a lot better now. Seems worth it to keep it, especially after the work Mgt88drcr did. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi administrator, in order to avoid confusion of AVESTA with any company name, please help to move this page to A-V-E-S-T-A computing issues as I had created the page "A-V-E-S-T-A computing issues" before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait until the outcome of this AFD is clear before moving the article to another name. GB fan 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I am missing something but looking through the references on the article that I have access to, I do not see a single one that uses AVESTA or A-V-E-S-T-A. I haven't found one that even links Aggregation, Versioning, Elimination, Standardization, Tagging and Allocation together. Does one of the sources that are not on the internet do this or is this linkage a new thing being introduced here? GB fan 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I am considering the change of name, say Accounting computing issues (two -ing, seem not so good), Accounting issues (confuse with the setting up or amendment of accounting standards to solve particular accounting issues), Accounting information system issues or Issues in accounting information systems (seem ok, the scope can be too board). Of course we can find relevant computing issues individually over the internet, not easy to find all six computing issues together. In fact my original objective behind the writing of the article is to describe and explain Six areas of computing issues of financial and management accounting encountered by multinational corporations. There are a lot of onerous computing issues, so want to focus on important six areas. In fact it is not easy to develop and implement any system to solve all these six computing issues together for any "changing organization". And it is difficult to locate an organization they encounter all these six computing issues that cannot be solved.Mgt88drcr (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see no coherent topic here that has also been covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no coherent topic here, period. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this article will be deleted, in order to support the interpretation of rules and regulation (may be I will write other articles), does it mean any wiki article shall be noted to a set of coherent topic, cannot note to different sources they are not related to the same topic. For example, the article of Hong Kong where Hong Kong I am most familiar, there are about 240 notable source, for example, I am not prepare to challenge the quality of the article, but following notable source are not attribute to coherent topic including 1. Corruption, 2. top 10 countries, 3. Climate, 4. Sexual Orientation and 5. Human Rights 6. great epidemic. May be very difficult to find an notable source to include all these six items so the author have to locate sources from different website.

34."Corruption Perceptions Index 2012". Transparency International. 2012. Retrieved 8 June 2013.]]

136 ^ "Top 10 Countries". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 24 January 2008. Retrieved 1 February 2008. Note: Hong Kong shall not be a country

128 "Climate of Hong Kong". Hong Kong Observatory. 4 May 2003. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

114 "Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in Hong Kong". Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. Retrieved 2 March 2010.

79.^ "疫情衝擊香港經濟損失巨大" [The impact of economic losses in the great epidemic] (in Chinese). BBC News. 28 May 2003. Retrieved 24 August 2010.

On anther angle to evaluate the article "Hong Kong", it is also very difficult to locate a set of coherent topic to have all the following key words as include in the article.

2.1 Pre-colonial 2.2 British colonial era 2.3 Japanese invasion 2.4 Cold War era 2.5 Since 1997 3.1 Legal system and judiciary 3.2 Human rights 3.3 Administrative districts 3.4 Military 4 Geography and climate 5 Economy 5.1 Infrastructure 6.1 Education 6.2 Health 7 Culture 7.1 Sport 7.2 Architecture

https://www.google.com.hk/webhp?source=search_app&gws_rd=cr&ei=4zSdUtiyEonFkgWI44HgCw#q=Pre-colonial++British+colonial+era+Japanese+invasion++Cold+War+era++Since+1997+3.1+Legal+system+and+judiciary+3.2+Human+rights+3.3+Administrative+districts+Military++Geography+and+climate+Economy+Infrastructure++Education++Health+Culture++Sport++Architecture

Obviously Wiki - Hong Kong come first, and no way to find other coherent topic to include all the key word relevant to Hong Kong.

In conclusion, the article "Hong Kong" is an excellent article that is not easy to find better one outside wiki.Mgt88drcr (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note User:Mgt88drcr attempted to move the article to Automation issues of accounting. Since this AfD is ongoing, and since there is opposition to a requested move discussion currently going on at the article's talk page, I've reverted the move. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The way this article keeps mutating over time has reinforced what some early commenters said: this article does not have a cohesive, well-defined topic that it's writing about. Yes, the six items may all be issues with accounting automation; however, the grouping of the six appears to be a new grouping—that is, original research. While some of the content may be salvageable, that would be fragments in other articles. In the long run, the best thing to do with this article is delete it, rather than try to do a scattered series of merges. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless there is an established paradigm in the literature that breaks accounting automation issues into precisely the six categories claimed in this article (in the same way that there is an established paradigm that breaks down network communications into seven abstract layers, for example), then this entire article, both title and content, is inherently original research, a novel theory that cannot be referenced to reliable sources, and there is simply no way to save it, it must be deleted. If there is some information in here that, as it happens, could be the basis for an article with an entirely different scope and direction, then let that article be created independently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can rewrite in a manner without mention specific number of issues grouped by well defined categories. So I will list more piecemeal automation issues of accounting as long as I can find notable source documents. Mgt88drcr (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi administrator, now I have rewritten the document in a way try maximizing the use of notable sources in relation to the proposed titled "Automation issues of accounting". See you comments. Thanks.Mgt88drcr (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On further consideration, I'm realizing that the article itself isn't so much providing information as it is serving as a directory to a large collection of external resources. It provides no details about any automation issue in accounting. The only information it presents is the trivial "Accounting automation software has its issues" and "spreadsheets are good". Beyond that it consists of a collection of arbitrary topics from the accounting field for which the author has identified automation-related articles elsewhere on the Web. Even though they are wrapped up in footnotes as though they were being used to support information being given in the article, the references really are the article. It's a portal, rather like Index of Hawaii-related articles, but the links lead outside, taking the article into the area covered by WP:LINKFARM under the article What Wikipedia is not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, add back some of analysis when it is deleted previously Mgt88drcr (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have reviewed all of above concerned. And effect significant change of the article. May not be perfect at this moment (undo a lot of previous deleted paragraph plus add some of my previous written documents). But I have to clear the day time works please let me more time to improve the article. For any insufficient notable sources, I will do it accordingly.Mgt88drcr (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing whether using question style is ok?Mgt88drcr (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 1 Initial review of automation issues of accounting 1.1 Are you triggering automation issues or accounting issues? 1.2 Are you completing implementation of automation or computerization? 1.3 Are you responsible for strategic business unit or legal entity accounting? 1.4 Is IFRS extending to include management accounting? 1.5 Is non-spreadsheet tools better than spreadsheet tool? 2 Further review of automation issues of accounting 2.1 Rely on spreadsheet tool 2.2 Not rely on spreadsheet tool 3 Optional review of automation issues of accounting 4 Emergent automation infrastructure for 21st century accounting 5 See also 6 References[reply]

  • Delete This article appears to be a how-to guide on how to automate accounting practices, rather than a cohesive article about any actually defined issues that have been identified in the use of accounting software. The tone of the article ("Are you doing this right?") indicates that it might be useful as a management magazine article, or even a WikiVersity entry, but not here at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The article is focus on describe automation issues of accounting rather than focus on describing how to implement automation of accounting. This can be very long story to discuss on how to implement automation of accounting. Agree Have removed the question like style.Mgt88drcr (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiDan61, in fact I shall realize to define issues that have been identified in the use of accounting software is a good point I shall explore further notable evidences in-depth rather than rely on my own experiences - the work of writing wiki article is totally different from employment application and interview that heavily rely on relevant working experiences rather than notable certification in respect of senior position and feel interest to chat with you on pre-defined time during coming public holiday. Also thanks for your editing of the article titled Multiway data analysisMgt88drcr (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments and also I have spent sometime to learn What Wikipedia is not. I have rewritten and restructured the subject matter and ultimately propose changed to titled Accounting process automation (i.e. to remove AVESTA) which is obviously different from Accounting software. Next step I will try to invite an native English speaker to rewrite the whole article in order to achieving better English. Hope you can support my work and give me more specific comments about contents. Of course this is not the end of the article, shall be a new beginning of this article for continuing improvement. Mgt88drcr (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AVESTA_computing_issues&oldid=1137530717"