Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database audit

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 no consensus. –MuZemike 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Database audit

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

totally non-encyclopedic essay WuhWuzDat 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article just needs more work per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gone is year 2005 when a user would write an article with basically no referencing and quit without saying anything, but the article is valid. Agree with colonnel Warden: Unfortunately we'd need some good souls to find the pages of the books the article is claiming to be referenced to. And, probably the reason why this article was forgotten is because no wikiproject was following it. I listed it now, it should be easier for the members of such wikiprojects to start referencing.--Sepastaj (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedic topic. Google books says there is 423 results, but doesn't list any of them, they having some sort of error right now. Not sure who to contact about that, or if they don't already know. If the nominator has a problem with the article, please use its talk page first and discuss it, don't just sent it straight to AFD. No one has posted on the talk page in years. The article has references. Google news search confirms this is a real thing. I see no reason not to keep it. Dream Focus 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that Google problem too. The parameter "-publisher:icon" seems to have something to do with it. If you take that away then you see the results. A source such as Auditing information systems seems adequate to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's nothing to do with that parameter. Google has broken one of its long-standing search interfaces. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in its current state, the article is simply a WP:CFORK of Database security combined with a WP:HOWTO manual. An encyclopaedic article on this topic is most probably possible, but the easiest way to create one would be to write it from scratch. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^comment 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hrafn. It may be possible to write an article on this topic, but none of the current article could practically be used in an encyclopedic article. WP:Delete the junk. SnottyWong ^comment 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Snottywood is right that the subject is appropriate for an article, and also right that the present material is not suitable as it is, but I do not see why he concludes that none of it can be used. Unless it proves to be altogether a copyvio, it's at the least a start. If that an article be poorly written should become a criterion for deletion, almost the entire contents of the encyclopedia would be in jeopardy. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, as I stated above, all the current material is either (i) off-topic or (ii) unencyclopaedic howto-manual material. Aggravating this, none of it has inline citation, and all the general references appear to be unreliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it does show some signs of being a copyvio, although I haven't put too much effort into checking just yet... SnottyWong ^gab 01:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A quick search returns only Wikipedia mirrors. It seems to be an essay drafted offline (a class assignment?) and pasted here. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar to Hrafn (although not quite), I see this as too much of a WP:HOWTO. We could support an article on database audit without that, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Poorly written, but appears to be a notable topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and significant subject, but the article needs more inline citations and more details. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the article had inline citations in its original, 2005, form. They even had the page numbers of the books in them. Some hamfisted editing since, not recognizing citations for what they are, has largely lost this information from the article. Of course, the problem with the original 2005 form, that Hrafn and others haven't tackled, is the fact that it spent several sections explaining background completely unnecessarily, before getting to the actual subject. The first six sections could have been wiped and replaced with something explaining "What is a database audit?", leaving the final three that actually got around to the topic at hand. We did, and do, have a database article answering the question "What is a database?", after all. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (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.