This honor is basically the Turing Prize comparable for the field of bookkeeping research. I trust it is the most renowned honor in bookkeeping, and that it is the main bookkeeping grant program recorded in wikipedia, while, for examination, the fields of financial matters and monetary financial matters research share around 17 honors recorded in wikipedia. (See Category: Economics grants.) The underlying stub of this article was set apart for cancellation, to some degree as the rundown from the outset comprises of generally red-joins, in light of the fact that so far not many of the main bookkeeping scientists have been shrouded in wikipedia. It is fundamental for stating the prominence of individual bookkeeping scholastics, notwithstanding, for this article to be held.
To react to the particular reactions: business articles
This article has all the earmarks of being minimal in excess of an assortment of red connections. That will be tended to over the long haul, by making articles for every one of these separately striking people. Not many bookkeepers or bookkeeping scholastics are yet recorded in wikipedia. Additionally, a portion of the red-connections will be adjusted by finding previous articles. The current posting utilizes full center names, along these lines, for instance, from the start the article for Robert S. Kaplan was not found.
The couple of names that do have articles made are basically hits. The previous articles connected so far have, notwithstanding, endure outstanding quality difficulties as being striking people, which goes to indicating the remarkableness of the honor by and large.
The remarkableness of this association is in no way, shape or form declared. Has been tended to by unequivocal affirmations in the article.
As I have reacted to the reactions, and as the directions demonstrate that I can eliminate the erasure tag (I don’t perceive any disallowance for the first writer of the article to eliminate it), I am doing that. doncram (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I’m not persuaded using any and all means. All we need to go on is 1) the OSU site, which is certifiably not a free sources, and 2) your say as much. There’s no other confirmation from free, solid sources. Also, the people recorded will require something beyond consideration in this lobby to demonstrate their outstanding quality. I’m taking this to AfD. – Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, let me take that back about the Turing Prize, as I am not generally acquainted with that prize’s unique situation. Also, having this honor shrouded in wikipedia isn’t basic for attesting outstanding quality of the people in articles that would be proper about them. In any case, I do realize that the rundown of people covered by the Accounting Hall of Fame incorporates amazingly all around respected scholastics, and the non-scholastics covered appear to be truly eminent people also. What’s more, by correlation with grants recorded in Category: Economics grants, covering this honor isn’t off the mark as an initial one to cover bookkeeping. One needs to begin some place. doncram (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am currently making a page for one of the individuals in the Hall. These individuals are frequently conspicuous bookkeeping scholastics, specialists, or standard setters on the Financial Accounting Standards Board or the International Accounting Standards Board. Likewise note that the Accounting Historians Journal covers the acceptance service. I think the article is by and large worthwhile.H.al-shawaf (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)