Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inherent risk (accounting)

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 speedy keep and leave for expansion. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 06:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent risk (accounting)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is very short, no real reference at all. I don't see a reason to keep this. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 12:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are loads of sources on Google Scholar. ^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a notable concept. The article needs to cite more sources and explain it better, but don't delete. Borock (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, sourcing isn't really a problem (an example book source ). If it isn't kept as a standalone article then merging might be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - right now it's a WP:DICDEF, but WP:N is met per above. Ansh6 6 6 03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close - nominator does not provide a policy-based rationale for deletion. WP:TOOSHORT, WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 17 August 2013 (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.