Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case Studies in Using IT to Commit Fraud

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete or keep.

Case Studies in Using IT to Commit Fraud
Appears to be some sort of teaching aid, not suitable for Wikipedia, delete--nixie 29 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this needs to be sourced, and then used as a sub-page to the source reference. The material is arguably relevant and notable in the context of an e-encyclopaedia. Unless, of course, it is a copyvio. [Sorry -- my latest paranoia] --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
 * delete as is, but sufficent work as suggested above would change my mind. If it's original work, there are other wikis that it could be hosted by, and WP could cite it where appropriate (though its own page would probably be going overboard unless it gained sufficient notability in the field). -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the author's organization of the article is unusual by calling the examples "case studies" but if you read what he/she has done, several real IT frauds have been summarized into an article on IT fraud.  IT fraud  is clearly a valid topic for an encyclopedia.  This is a much better start to an article than the typical one sentence stub I am used to seeing.  I do think the article needs a shorter name and more introduction.  See Bank fraud, Email fraud, and Phone fraud to name a few other examples.  Let's not delete good content for an IT fraud article just because the author's literary style is a little different than what we might have expected. DS1953 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)
 * Keep but reorganize. The "case histories" are valid information for an encyclopedia. The editor is not drawing new conclusions from them, so this is not original research. Bambaiah June 30, 2005 08:29 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe merging some of the stuff into the Fraud page. The stuff is true and useful, although maybe not all of it. Why waste what is not original research, patent nonsense or vanity? Batmanand 30 June 2005 08:31 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Article needs expansion and a rename but is definately worth having. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * The content here is duplicated at computer fraud case studies. Morwen - Talk 30 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.