Deletion of Credit Management

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: The great notability of this topic may be seen from the http://books.google.com/books?&as_brr=0&as_epq=Credit+Management thousands of books, http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22credit+management%22&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N scholarly papers and http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&q=%22Credit+Management%22+encyclopedia+&btnG=Search+Books 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:COPYRIGHT||WP:PLAGIARISM)

Comment: An essay that violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as , then potentially redirect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)