Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative auditing

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 --JForget 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative auditing

Unsourced neologism apparently invented by this article's first editor. (Compare username with the name cited in the last paragraph.) Only 309 Google hits, the vast majority of them related to the editor's firm. Article was prodded but prod was removed by another single-purpose account. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a rather vague and promotional sounding article, likely devised to promote a business using this term. Suggest redirect to forensic accounting, which would appear to be a more standard and well accepted name for a similar subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks reliable sources to show usage. We should not be introducing a new term in Wikipedia that is not widely used elsewhere, per Wikipedia: Avoid neologisms. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Surely all auditing is investigative. Isn't that the whole point of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 08:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - built for advert purposes. --Pearrari (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2008 (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.