Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assured Compliance Assessment Solution


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ミラP 01:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Assured Compliance Assessment Solution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no coverage of this suggesting it would be notable and there's no reason it would be. The US Department of Defense licenses a small package of cybersecurity products that it makes available for use by its computer network operations, and refers to them internally as the "Assured Compliance Assessment Solution". It's explained here. It's just an internal name for this internally downloadable suite of retail products. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE as it has not been discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field - Epinoia (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment I've just wikified this stub for encyclopedic tone and re-written. ACAS is extensively used within DoD, but not widely reported in the media. Some additional sources have been cited, however, including the U.S. Army news article, to meet GNG. NSOFTWARE is just an essay, by the way.  JGHowes   talk  13:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources in the most recent version at this moment,
 * Reference 1 smells very much like Segue Technologies suggesting that it can offer auxiliary services to organizations in the military wanting to implement ACAS. Advertising.
 * Reference 2 is to a website sponsored by the manufacturer of the software that currently constitutes ACAS, essentially an advertisement, not coverage by an independent source.
 * Reference 3 is from Business Wire, so it's already given that it's a press release. In this case, it's a press release by the manufacturer, Tenable. Not an independent source.
 * The sole mention of ACAS in Reference 4 is in the caption to a photo, identifying the subject of the photo. Not significant coverage of this topic.
 * Reference 5 is DISA, the organization that supplies ACAS to military users, supplying ACAS to military users. Not an independent source.
 * Reference 6 is by the US Army, another instance of the military communicating to its members about its own offering. Not an independent source.
 * Reference 7 alone appears to contribute to WP:GNG.
 * Largoplazo (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your dismissal of refs 5 and 6: these are official statements published by the Federal government and, as such, are certainly reliable sources. To say they are not "independent" is akin to saying the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey are not "independent" of, say, their extensive use as refs in Yellowstone National Park, a FA.  JGHowes   talk  01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're confusing verifiably and notably. An NPS publication can be a good source to back up assertions about Yellowstone but has no role in establishing its notability under WP:GNG. If my company's IT department has built a system for recording time worked called TimeWatch that all employees are to use, then an announcement of the release of the product by the CEO, instructions and rules from the HR department for using TimeWatch, and an article highlighting TimeWatch in the internal company newsletter produced by the Communications department are reliable sources for information about TimeWatch, but they aren't independent sources establishing the notability of it. Largoplazo (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have different opinions about what constitutes notability. In my view, an infosec program that is mandated by the Department of Defense, the U.S. largest employer, is notable on its face and has reference value for the reader.  JGHowes   talk  14:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia supplies no guideline for finding a topic notable based on an arbitrary set of characteristics that seem to make it so on its face. The whole point of WP:GNG is that if independent sources haven't taken note of something, it isn't for us to declare it worthy of note. Right now it appears to be an internal US military detail that's obscure to the rest of the world. Largoplazo (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Being military specific and "obscure to the rest of the world" is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude Wikipedia content. ACAS is the tool suite specified in USCYBERCOM TASKORD 17-0019, Scanning and Remediation. It is significant in the DoD and elsewhere in the federal government. I feel it has merit and should be retained. I'm not a Wiki editor, but as a longtime ACAS user, military auditor, and expert on Risk_management_framework. Jeremycec —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Re "being ... obscure to the rest of the world ... is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude Wikipedia content": On the contrary: it's the very essence of the Notability policy with which every article topic must comply, and resonates throughout this project's guidelines on that topic.
 * That software's users use it and even its actual importance don't make it notable under Wikipedia's definition of that word, which differs from its ordinary usage. "NotED" would be closer. Largoplazo (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. My university library system pulled up 29 published references on this topis. Here is a small selection of sources:
 * 1) "Tenable Network Security Selected for DISA Assured Compliance Assessment Solution", Professional Services Close - Up, Apr 29, 2012 ("Agency (DISA) as the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS). In a release on April 23, the company said tenable products will be available to the...")
 * 2) "Cybersecurity Software protects data across multiple platforms.(SAIC Introduces CyberSecurity Edge(TM))", Product News Network, Sept 3, 2014 ("Security's Assured Compliance Assessment Solution for the Defense Information Systems Agency -- Operation of multiple security operations centers...")
 * 3) "Defense Information Systems Agency Selects HP to Assess Networks for Vulnerabilities", Wireless News, April 25, 2012 ("terms of the contract, the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution will be available for implementation across the DoD as the compliance solution. HP will")
 * 4) "Department of Defense Selects Tenable Network Security", Wireless News, Oct 10, 2011, ("Tenable Network Security, a provider of Unified Security Monitoring, announced that it has been selected for the Department of Defense Assured Compliance Assessment Solution...")
 * 5) "DoD Cyber IA Range open and ready for customers", Gaudreau, Neil ; Combs, Jeffrey, CHIPS, July-Sept, 2012, Vol.30(3), p.22(5) ("Securify * DoD Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS) * IPSonar *")
 * 6) "Enterprise security system deployment", Salmon, Scott A., Army Communicator, Summer, 2014, Vol.39(2), p.51(2 ("vulnerabilities that impact mission readiness and the ability to command and control. The Assured Compliance Assessment Solution..")
 * 7) "Press Release: SAIC Introduces CyberSecurity Edge(TM)", Dow Jones Institutional News, Aug 26, 2014, ("Assured Compliance Assessment Solution for the Defense Information Systems Agency -- Operation of multiple security operations centers, network operations...")
 * Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you check that each of these sources counts under WP:GNG? I'm thinking not because at least three of them (including, explicitly, the last), are press releases, which don't count. Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Largoplazo, enough of these are not press releases to satisfy WP:GNG. Source 5 was tagged as peer reviewed journal article. I just copy pasted the first seven of 29 publications without cherry picking the best of the bunch.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2019 (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.