Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Centurion

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Centurion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there may be substantial coverage in the Gibraltar Chronicle, there is no coverage outside that newspaper except passing mentions, "mission statements", and explanations of the competition rules. In order to satisfy notability, a subject has to gain coverage in multiple, intelectually independent publications, so the coverage in the Gibraltar Chronicle is not enough. wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that the competition is still growing, it would be best to leave this page on Wikipedia. Having a place like this would greatly benefit the competition. While there may be a lack of coverage in newspapers, there is more coverage on the web, with various articles mentioning CyberCenturion. For example, Northrup Grumman has a news post on the winners of the 2018 competition: https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/releases-20180312-6679646. automation.com has a news article covering the start of the 2017-2018 competition: https://www.automation.com/automation-news/industry/northrop-grumman-announces-launch-of-2017-2018-cybercenturion-competition. Info Security magazine also has an article covering the 2018 finals: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news-features/institution-engineering-technology/. Even the Government of Gibraltar has created a press release for CyberCenturion: https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/sites/default/files/press/2018/Press%20Releases/126-2018.pdf. Hopefully I've proved my point - just take a look on Google (or any search engine of your choice) and you'll find that it's covered in more places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowsay256 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improved - now there's a lot of sources, a lot of which are NOTNEWS / primarynews, but on balance this is sourced with plenty of RS and if continued will build more sources. Was WP:BEFORE done? Widefox; talk 13:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: the next time you question whether "WP:BEFORE was done" on an AfD of mine, I am opening a thread against you at ANI. wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's sources here and in the article now that aren't in the nom, so the nom is misleading, not from the trivial misspelling of "intellectually", but by being factually incorrect. The nom's assertion there is no coverage outside that newspaper except ... is not as definitely stated evidence of absence but absence of evidence - see Argument from ignorance ..there may have been an insufficient investigation.., a logical fallacy. A quick search finds even more [1] The Telegraph [2] [3] [4] (non-independent) [5] + others. Widefox; talk 17:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of proper BEFORE is already at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo by User:Govvy with multiple editors mentioning BEFORE there and at all these AfDs. Are you going to take everyone to ANI? If I feel you haven't done BEFORE, I will say - see WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And then I remember you accusing me of wikilawyering. wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note there's no answer. Widefox; talk 18:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People. Can we please stop the biting. The identification a source in Gibraltar not in the article indicates some sort of search ... beyond that a claim there were no other WP:RS is dubious as it is rarely to know with 100% certainty there are no such other sources that exist. I will attempt to consolidate some unused references on the article talk page. While the Telegraph article below might be considered a press release the Info Security magazine is looks solid and I assume the nominator believes at least one of the articles from the Gibraltar media is solid. I believe it is important to stop the bickering at AfD's. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some cites, confirmed the Telegraph url above is saved to Wayback and put the RAF url there. Overall we now have identified a good spread of independent sources so we're way beyond the rock, even a passing mention from Canada though probably not enough from that one for a notability count. Big significant difference can be not assigning to the relevant Computing Wikiproject(s) so I guess we are gratefeul to the relisters here. Thanks to Wumbolo for at least AfDing this one and not PRODing it or it would probably have been a goner, that said once spotted it was always going to be a keep in my opinion. Have no clue what the NCSC or this year's contestants makes of this AfD though! 12:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Good work, it's been improved and demonstrates passing GNG. The topic of tech participation, awareness, outreach, education for kids and the The National Museum of Computing seems to align with the WP:PURPOSE here. After all, that's what we're here for isn't it, the readers. I'm sure we can all agree that there doesn't appear to be an abundance of independent sources yet. Widefox; talk 23:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request admins only closure. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2018 (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.