Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host-based intrusion detection system


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Host-based intrusion detection system

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was brought to the attention of the content noticeboard. Article has been unsourced for awhile, in vio of WP:V. Phearson (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment; maybe delete Other than the complete lack of sources (and a hint of essayishness), the content appears reasonable to me, at first glance. There's no shortage of easily googled sources in this field - I'm surprised this article hasn't been fixed already! Alas, digging around to find sources for somebody else's old text is not very time-efficient, and I don't have free time for a rewrite at the moment. If nobody else fixes the article during the course of this AfD I'm happy for it to be deleted - I'll write a nice, sourced replacement from scratch, later in July. bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs some "citation needed" tags at least but it clearly is verifiable and thus meets WP:V DeVerm (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
 * WP:SOFIXIT Until it does, it does not meet WP:V. I am hesitant to fix this because this particular part of the computing aspect is quite confusing, especially with the marketing terms people comeup with on a whim. Phearson (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I spend enough time editing on WP to not feel guilty nor compelled to jump onto this article to take charge of it too. But that doesn't mean this article isn't WP:N / WP:V because it is. Lacking references can be handled by editing, talk page discussion or even by slapping some tags onto it which are all better options than delete imho --DeVerm (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC).


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;A solidly notable topic that deserves rescue rather than deletion. I've added a citation and a Rescue template. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kernel.package (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Agreement with RJHall. However, whether or not "Keep" is a consensus agreement arising from the Delete debate or is an independent opinion isn't clear. (This may be a newbie remark since I'm unfamiliar with Delete "project page".)
 * Observation: The Citizendium article is identical to this---is it common that they copy from here, or could this be a copyright violation on our part? Was too fast here, it is Citizendia, a Wikipedia mirror. Otherwise, notable topic, hundreds of scientific and white papers available, keep. --Pgallert (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is clearly notable. Click the Google news, Google books, or Google Scholar searches at the top of the AFD, and there are results, people talking about this.  I'll see what I can add to the article.  Remember to use WP:BEFORE to avoid wasting people's times with pointless deletion nominations.   D r e a m Focus  06:03, 29 July 2011 (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.