Deletion of AVESTA computing issues

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 OSI model|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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  under the article |What Wikipedia is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM||WP:NOT)