Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative auditing (2nd nomination)

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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative auditing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an expanded version of previously deleted material; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative auditing. The article remains a neologism for which no notability has been shown; while I haven't checked every link, and the author has used many external links where Wikilinks would be more appropriate, the only real references given are to search engine results for the phrase "investigative auditing" in a medical publication database. The author seems to want to draw some sort of distinction between "investigative auditing" and the better-established phrase forensic accounting, but the distinction seems elusive. This may be intended to promote a commercial business; previous versions contained a logo. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a tautologous neologism. The whole point of auditing is that it is investigative. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 29 February 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.