Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intangible accounting

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible accounting

I was unable to find prominent news reports or academic papers not associated with Ken Standfield, who is credited with creating the term(and who wrote the article). Therefore, I judge it to be a neologism which has failed to catch on in the wider world of economics, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia to be an attempt at self-promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Danielrocks123 06:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Intangible accounting is real, but not strongly associated with Ken Standfield. See, for example, International Accounting Standard 38 - Intangible assets. This is a hot issue in the accounting community, covering issues such as how to value development costs of computer software, but the article here seems to be about something else entirely. Standfield is trying to figure out how to deal with accounting for non-financial items. This is a real subject. See, for example, Attention economy; you can run out of attention separately from money, because you can't buy time. But Standfield's take on this seems to be off in another direction. I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems to be a reuse of a known term for a new idea. There could be an article on this subject, but it will need a neutral party with accounting expertise to write it. --John Nagle 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation matches my very foggy understanding of accounting. It says, for example, that assets can be valued only if "it is probable that the future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the enterprise; and the cost of the asset can be measured reliably." In other words, it is very clearly concerned with the dollar value of intangible assets, and their role in financial transactions, just like everything else in accounting. The article we're discussing talks about "non-financial transactions" and is, as you say, something completely different. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are numerous articles and books on intangible assets such as brands, but the direction here is purely self-serving. I do agree with above comment that an independant article with wider references would be welcome. Nelson50 09:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rewrite per Nelson50. --Coredesat 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've removed the Standfield stuff and what remains seems valid enough to me (I am not an accountant). Accounting for intangibles is a valid field - hopefully someone will add to this article in a factual way. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Nagle's comment above, and mine. I don't think this article is a valid description of how intangibles are treated in standard accounting. That is, what is being called "intangible accounting" is not "standard accounting practices for intangibles." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right - why not just make the appropriate changes? If you get it roughly right now it can improve over time. The topic seems worth an article. Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless provided with good, verifiable source citations, prior to expiration of AfD discussion showing that this is a currently accepted discipline. I know very little of accounting, but it bothers me that what the article says seems to conflict with what little I do know. I believed that in standard accounting intangibles were valued by the amount actually paid to acquire them; that is, they are treated as part of ordinary financial transactions. I worry that this article is using words like "capital" with private meanings that do not correspond to their dictionary definitions or their accepted usage in accounting or economics, and that perhaps one of Standfield's purposes in creating the article to promote novel meanings for these words. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Accounting may be concerned with intangible assets, but could someone point me to a non-KS use of the term "intangible accounting"? Right now it sort of seems like creating an article called "squishy physics". Sure physics deals with squishy things... but.... Sdedeo (tips) 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than that, because there is AFAIK no existing meaning for the phrase "squishy physics." A better analogy would be someone writing an article on the ratiocination processes of police detectives under the title "fuzzy logic." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is actually a term "intangible accounting", we should have an article on it (i.e., we shouldn't delete the article, just KS's rubbish.) Is there a ref. to a non-KS use of the term? Sdedeo (tips) 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there's a reference: Intangible asset. Wikipedia has this covered. --John Nagle 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got it. Yes, this article must go. Sdedeo (tips) 03:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe someone can add something intelligent on the subject in the Ken Standfield article. I've been reading some of his stuff, but it reads like this: Intangible Management® is the science of converting potential into results through the effective management of knowledge, relationships, motivation, and speed. Maybe if you can get past the buzzwords, there's something there, but it's going to take work to dredge it out. Anyway, it's definitely original research. --John Nagle 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article contains one potentially interesting sentence about "effective time", whatever that is. It appears to me that including that in intangible asset, if there is a notable theory, might be the best choice. RandomP 06:32, 14 June 2006 (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.