Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of specialized computer-aided audit tools


 * 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   merge to  Computer-aided audit tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of specialized computer-aided audit tools

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly WP:OR article and provides little useful information. For the OR part, the only third-party source cited is a 2004 comparison, which however is way outdated to be useful for the modern software being compared here, except perhaps for choosing some of the comparison criteria. A lot of the criteria used in the wiki page don't appear in that source though. All other refs are primary sources (manufacturers' pages). And most of the software compared actually implements most of the features. The exceptions are minor and those criteria in which there are some differences are not actually among those listed in the 2004 comparison cited. So, it's hard to conclude that this page is anything but WP:OR. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - possibly just the references, to Computer-aided audit tools. Per nom, OR as these comparison lists often are, also failing GNG as this comparison is covering non-notable software. Only one of the compared software packages has a wikipedia page, and that is for the company, not the software itself.Dialectric (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge This article provides a good bit of useful information on CAAT products, including lists of criteria by which to judge CAAT systems. But at AfD, utility counts for little. The first reference in the article, a secondary RS provides a basis for a comparison of systems per WP:CSC. But the article goes quite a but beyond that and in the process synthesizes quite a bit of information. While the synth material could be removed, there is still the problem of a second RS. Without multiple RS, this article fails WP:GNG notability guidelines. But per WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information should be preserved instead of deleted. The first ref and possibly a comparison table based on it should be merged into Computer-aided audit tools, the parent article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2014 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.