Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Wright


 * 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   delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul M. Wright

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have attempted to locate reliable secondary source coverage of this computer scientist, but have been unable to do so. I had difficulty with google scholar locating this individual, as there is a PM Wright that appears to be in a different field. There also is a Paul M. Wright who is a judge, but that appears to be a different person. It appears that this subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar is for academic sources, Paul is an Industry Author hence the book references and Industry Journals. Writing the first book on a growing subject meets notability criteria- and he is certainly an Author. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CQOQGwAACAAJ&dq=%22paul+m.+wright%22&hl=en&ei=FHluTp-mGMKg8QO0tPEk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA There is already a reference to same Paul M. Wright here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_forensics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.156 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — 62.31.128.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Redirect to Database forensics without prejudice to merge Many people write good articles and books, but this topic does not satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia.  Deleting the article would just hide the material from ordinary editors for no reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The so-called field of "database forensics" claims to be associated with Digital forensics which has to do with what is done with computers that are seized from people that have been arrested, but "database forensics" has nothing to do with databases that won't be used again. The use of the word "forensics" has to do with reading the database to detect the traces of improper access, which seems to be more related to database mining and database security than forensics.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 17 September 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) 00:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete - No indication of notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is a guideline...an argument that there is a lack of notability is an argument that the topic should not have a stand-alone article. I.e., why should the material be deleted, are there alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD) here?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the subject is sufficiently notable in his discipline, the content could be merged into "database forensics", with due weight. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete -- This Author is notable as he has written the first book on this subject, which has subsequently expanded to include two other books in the same field (see Database Forensics Wiki entry Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_forensics, which Paul Authored http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Database_forensics&offset=20060602205635&action=history). I found this reliable Citation as per the request for more references - http://www.citeulike.org/user/dendi_rm/article/1567986. I note that there now 8 references, so that requirement appears to be satisfied as well. I think deletion would be unjustified as Notability and Citation requirements have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.156 (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 62.31.128.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 62, the sources need to be about the person, not written by them. For example, a biography, written and published by a reliable source independent of the subject. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @62 citeulike says, "Register and you can start organising your references online.", which, without actually doing more research, so I could be wrong, seems to mean that the site is self-published.  Self-published web sites are, with some exceptions, not considered reliable, see WP:SPS on WP:V.  I'm sorry, but your post is probably getting very little attention because it seems to be based on inexperience.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (talk)  15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)



Adding this citation to the ACM Citation from Jean-Pierre Kuilboer (Review #: CR137053 (1006-0557)) http://www.reviews.com/Review/review_reviewprint.cfm?review_id=137053, we have the additional Citations requested. These Citations also both verify Authorship of the first book on Database Forensics, which establishes notability. The article passes both requested criteria so should be preserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.156 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete -- Another reliable citation from Professor Snodgrass of the University of Arizona Computer Science Department - a recognised expert in the subject of database forensics - see http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rts/sql3.html


 * 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.