Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Emerging issues in IT audit

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 DELETE. Golbez 08:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging Issues in IT Audit

More of an advertisment than an encyclopedia article. Craigy (talk) 16:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Not vanity. This is part of a class project and several related pages have been put on VfD over the last week or so. See 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 20:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should we keep articles just because they're class projects? Articles have to stand or fall on their own merits, and if the article is deleted, that should be an indication of the student's grade, hm? Delete unless cleaned up to a Wikipedia-level article by the end of the voting period. RickK 21:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Emerging Issues" articles bring to mind Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. Anything worth keeping can be put in Information Technology Audit, which should be renamed to proper capitalization and calls for heavy cleanup. --Tabor 22:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Material not in form of an encyclopedic article, given the title and scope, doubt it can be. Dysprosia 00:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The annual American Institute of Certified Public Accountants technology watchlist may be mundane, but it's a notable and credible information sourch. The article itself needs to be transformed into encyclopedic style.Tobycat 05:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasons given above are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 08:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopaedic. Comes off like a term paper and would need a lot of copy editing to make it encyclopedic. There are nuggets of useful information throughout, but more as notes for other articles than in some rehabilitated form of this one. I'd vote keep if "This article should be transwikied to Wikitermpapersource" were an option; anyone up for starting a new sister project ... :-) 66.167.141.93 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (contributor since May 2003).
• Delete - For the purposes of this paper (research), Tone is huckster selling rheumatism medicine, Topic by it's nature will be out of date in a few months regardless. Fabartus 06:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, emerging issues topics are not encyclopedic. Rhobite 17:56, Jun 13, 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.