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. Wifione Message 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content audit[edit]

Content audit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject seems important, but the page is based on mostly unreliable sources, blogs, personal pages, company sites, etc. Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should've added: What other cites could I add to make the article better? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books is your best bet for scholarly and reliable content. Here are the search results for "content audit" that I found. More can be found on Google Scholar (see link above). I did give some thought to how to handle this article before nominating it for AFD. One idea was to delete all the unreliable sources, but that would have left a skeleton of an article. I had a similar experience in a deletion discussion a few years ago, in which the subject was good but the sources weren't, so I took that as my example for what to do with this one. I hope you can find better sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I looked at Content inventory and see that you used a lot of the same personal pages, blogs, company websites, etc. for that one. I guess the reason I got involved was because I reviewed your nomination for Did You Know?, which is pretty strict about Wikipedia guidelines. May I also suggest that you replace the unreliable sources on that page with more reliable content? Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns. Content audit is a known term in the website management community. Wikipedia policy states that blog posts from established experts in their fields published by reliable third-party sources may be acceptable. No books have been written completely on "Content audits" that I know of; but I think there is one in the works by a recognized expert in the field, who writes his own blog, speaks publicly, and tweets. There is the one cite I used by Halvorson from her book in the article. Another blog post I used is from Annie Cushing; her work as an expert is noted here at SearchEngineLand[1]. Two other cites I use are by Nick Kellet, the co-founder of Listly[2]. I tried to limit myself to cites from recognized experts like these, either in blog posts or from online articles, such as from uxmag.com.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another cite in the content audit article is by Hilary Marsh, a recognized expert in the field. She is Chief Content and Digital Strategist of Content Company[3] and speaker at 2013 Content Strategy event[4].-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And another cite in the content audit article is by Rick Allen, co-founder of Meet Content[5]. Mr. Allen has been a featured speaker at Gilbane Conference 2013[6] and also Confab 2013[7]. Here's an interview that Vertical Measures did with him in 2010[8].-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that you are quoting experts in the field. My concern is that you are quoting their blogs or other pages that are not considered reliable sources. Please read WP:SELFPUBLISH. As the guideline states, If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. The goal is to quote information from secondary sources, not these expert's webpages or blogs. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can throw a rock and hit any number of Wikipedia articles with a miserable set of refs. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_archiving. Here you'll say this doesn't matter in this particular case, because we're talking about the article on Content Audit. OK. I have said the experts are experts in their fields, but you don't seem to be accepting that. OK. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."[9] I don't know what you want from me. I am starting the article on Content Audit. Let me rephrase that: I would like to start the article on Content Audit on Wikipedia. Content Audit is a legitimate term in the web management profession. Do you want me to withdraw this article from the DYK? Do you want me to ask you to delete the article? What would satisfy you? I have selected the best citations I can find from a group of recognized experts in the field to collect into an encyclopedic article so that the entire world might benefit from this shared knowledge. Want to delete the article? Delete the article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be belligerent; I guess I'm just not making my point clearly enough. You are right – most articles on Wikipedia are not properly sourced. But when you nominate something for DYK, it does have to meet a stricter set of rules. That's what led to this AFD.
If I were to write an article on content audit, which is a well-known practice, I would go straight to Google Books, Google Scholar, and webpages that talk about the subject, and pull information from there. You do not need to find whole books on the subject; even a passing reference in a chapter or paragraph will do. Maybe, if a piece of information was missing, I would quote the blog of an established expert – but I would not base the entire page on blogs, personal pages, and promotional company websites. That is just asking for someone, somewhere down the line, to either tag the article for faulty sourcing or to remove the sources altogether. As this AFD is generating very little interest, the article will probably stand. I humbly suggest that you replace the current sourcing with citations from books and articles that discuss the subject (Halverson's chapter certainly qualifies), rather than promote it. Sincerely, Yoninah (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time just now to do what you suggest, which is a great suggestion. Thank you much for that. Can it stay in limbo in DYK status while I work on that? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you nominated the article within the 5-day time frame mandated by DYK, I guess you could work on the article for up to 7 or 10 days after the AFD closes. An administrator might ping your talk page to remind you to finish it up. We could also put a note on the DYK nomination page to say that you are working on it. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, the very first ref is from a chapter in a book. Another book with a whole chapter on "content audits" is noted in the "Further reading" section. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. And what about the rest of the refs? Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through the article and re-cite where I can. I can't promise a time-frame, though. It would be best if I had a weekend. Life is getting busier these days. So if you can lift the AFD so that I have at least a window with a weekend in it, that would help me. Also, Yoninah, can you update your note at the DYK nom text so that editors know I'll be working on the cite fixes and NOT remove it from DYK nom? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you have time. The AFD discussion will close 7 (or more) days after it's opened, which is tomorrow at the earliest. Then I'll update the DYK nomination page and make a note that you're working on improving the refs. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, I'm not trying to be belligerent and I know you're only trying to improve the article, but, having read WP:DELETE, I don't see any of the 14 deletion reasons listed as applying to this article. That the citations here need to be improved is not a valid reason to delete. Where am I going wrong? You yourself satisfied reason #7 with your link to a GoogleBooks search showing there are literally dozens of books that at least mention "content audit". --96.231.113.61 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More