Template:Did you know nominations/FBI Cyber Division

Withdrawn

FBI Cyber Division

 * ... that the FBI Cyber Division,created in 2002, is credited with taking down of the cyber crime forum DarkMarket?
 * Reviewed: Saleh Mosque

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nom at 18:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go, although I would like to see it assessed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg All sources in the article are from the FBI or those closely related (the author of the book is also a former fibbie and currently works closely with them), and it would be helpful to have secondary sources. Also, the stats presented in the article could use updating, for instance, the IFC was renamed to the IC3 as far back as 2003, and they released 2011 stats of receiving more than 300,000 complaints, substantially different than the 2002 stats of 75,000 cited in the article. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the issues raised, as far as I can tell there are no other, more reliable sources on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't agree, there are many secondary sources. For instance, a couple quick Google/Google Scholar searches reveal a substantial number. ArsTechnica, for a 2009 example, and several high-profile legal cases as well. The article also still needs more up-to-date statistics, if they're to be cited. I think these issues should be addressed, but that's just me. Perhaps Bluemoonset or someone more experienced at DYK than I could comment. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those sources, can you add them to article as elinks? They will be useful for further expansion, but I think this start-class article is good enough for a DYK. -(DYKs don't have to be comprehensive and use all available sources).-Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator has not added secondary sources in three weeks and the article consists almost entirely of primary sources. This is not main page material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show me where the DYK guidelines require secondary sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How long have you been on Wikipedia? Seriously. DYKs must follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines in general (although not to the same degree as FAs), and thus they need to follow WP:PRIMARY, especially: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And here you have it: "primary sources are permitted if used carefully". I believe I have used them carefully; hence all is in order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And you completely ignored the part of that sentence where it says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed...". Two editors have already told you that this is not ready to go as it is, as it does not establish it's notability through secondary or tertiary sources. If you want to try for a fourth opinion, please do, but I have half a mind to close this for IDIDNTHEARTHAT-ism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Close it, I don't care enough about this subject to devote more time for improving it, and you are right, the consensus is against me. Let's move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)