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. Sole keep vote doesn't address the concern that the article is duplicated by other articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Management[edit]

Credit Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Junk essay that duplicates other content. Beat with burning stick. Ipatrol (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. I endorsed Fences and window's PROD on this article as original research that can not serve as a starting point for an article. Can an article be created with this title? Yes. But this is not the starting point for it. PROD was removed with no explanation other than "Removing PROD" and no improvement to the article either. I was going to bring this to AfD after a couple of days, but glad it's here. This is definitely not an article that can be left out there in the hope that someone will come by and improve it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is our explicit editing policy that we leave articles out there in the expectation that other editors will improve them. You fail to provide any reason why we should not follow policy in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research and a personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please indicate any original thoughts and personal sentiments and explain why we might not just edit these in the normal way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Credit manager, or possibly to Credit risk as per Credit risk management. JJL (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is sensible that we should consider these other articles but these other topics seem subordinate in that they describe a component of the overall process of credit management. As an encyclopedia, we should first aim for a broad treatment rather than confining ourselves to specific details. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't disagree, but I don't feel well-positioned to do that task and felt a rd was preferable to volunteering that someone other than I do it. At this point some sort of merge of this article and Credit manager seems sensible to me. JJL (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR, then potentially redirect. Plastikspork (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I prodded, the deprod was done without any reasoning or improvement. This is an OR-filled pointless essay, unsalvagable without starting again entirely from scratch. Fences&Windows 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I experience no difficulty in improving the article without first deleting it. Please explain the problem as we require solid reasons to deprive contributors of the editing credit to which they are entitled under the terms of our licence. Please see our guideline, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility".

• Delete: An essay that violates WP:OR. Iowateen (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above: original research, and a redundant content fork of accounts receivable, which seems to be the far better known term and would be my choice for a redirect target. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ''Accounts receivable is strictly just the bookkeeping for debtors. Credit management is a larger topic with a wider scope. A significant part of the activity is to keep bad risks from becoming accounts receivable. The continuing financial crisis indicates that there is much need for education about these matters and so we should cover the topic carefully. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The great notability of this topic may be seen from the thousands of books, scholarly papers and encyclopedic articles which cover it, many of them being devoted entirely to the topic and given the title Credit Management like our article. The article just needs improvement in accordance with our editing policy and deletion is not helpful in this. I have made a modest start but the article already has better sources than some of the suggested alternatives such as Accounts Receivable. The editors above who complain of original research provide no particulars or evidence but it seems that they misunderstand the point. Our articles are required to be original writing as they might otherwise be in breach of our policies on copyright or plagiarism. What we must avoid are original theories or discoveries but this issue is not relevant to this article which describes a common business activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This topic is covered pretty well by other articles. And the vague title of the vague topic will of course turn up thousands of ghits because the phrase is so common, but that doesn't mean it pertains to this topic. For example: [1], [2] and [3] all come up on google search, but those are for consumers, not businesses, but they use the vague phrase "credit management" in their meta tag. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, duplicates (cfork?) other articles and invites synthesis. Verbal chat 16:31, 8 July 2009 (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.