Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Disaster recovery and continuity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was this article was eventually redirected to Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Auditing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Disaster Recovery and Continuity
I'm sure an article can be written about Disaster recovery and business continuity, but this smells like a copyvio of the cited sources, which unfortunately I can't track down, and otherwise it's a How-to. Maybe more appropriate at Wikibooks. But I'm really not sure what to do with it. Can anyone advise?
For now: Transwiki to Wikibooks unless someone can prove it's a copyvio. Mgm|(talk) 20:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere. The original poster is an anonymous user and there is no follow-up edits to suggest the person came back to revise. I don't know if it's a copyvio but I'm willing to bet it's some sort of term paper. Conditional delete vote ONLY if this is indeed original research or a copyvio.23skidoo 21:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for now. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 5#Emerging Issues in IT Audit above. This is part of a class project and several related pages have been put on VfD over the last week or so. Not a copyright violation or a cut-and-paste. Someone has responded and they have been working on it. See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/IT_Audit_Resources. Let's give it a little time. The topic is certainly legitimate although the presentation is very un-wikilike. - DS1953 21:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- By the way, original writing is obviously not the same as original research within the meaning of what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). As long as it is really research (i.e., supported by legitimate verifiable sources), the fact that someone has done their own homework should be acceptable. - DS1953 21:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Weak delete, reassess later, or merge with Disaster recovery. Rather problematic. The current content seems to belong at Wikibooks. Disaster Recovery and Continuity is an inept title, and the content appears to actually be about auditing disaster recovery plans. If the content were appropriate to the title, it would belong at Disaster recovery. --Tabor 22:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, we are the group in charge of this section for the class project, and have moved the information in this topic to Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Auditing. Therefore, this article here can be deleted. - Group6 25:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've fixed the redirect... I guess we can shelve this VfD discussion, too. --Joy [shallot] 18:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
