Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSIOS


 * 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. It is contrary to policy and practice to argue that because cyber security is a "most notable issue", a company that provides such services to a government is also notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED. The second "keep" is therefore discounted.  Sandstein  10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

CSIOS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, citations are to coverage that is largely routine and not in reliable sources. Web searches return much the same. Rosguill talk 06:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  07:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  07:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Cybersecurity provider for the US government, coverage in different publications + awards.I am the author of the article. Globe2trotter (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete above keep !vote is unsubstantiated, minor awards do not confer notability. None of the sources pass WP:NCORP standards, being interviews with no independant analysis or content (e.g the "top 50 brands" article), or routine coverage likely based on press releases Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are no interviews and no press releases in the list of references used. Infact, I can't find many press releases the company has issued. I respect your views on awards. I did have my doubts but I concluded otherwise given those are the major awards within the industry. Globe2trotter (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * interview, interview.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet notability as per WP:ORGCRIT and no independent sources --Jay (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep since cyber security is quite evidently a most notable issue and so is the provider of cyber security services to the United States government. The article can be improved, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how WP:V relates to "quite evidently" there; I don't see how you're argument has anything to with WP:NCORP - if this company is "evidently" notable please show the sourcing for that. CSIOS seems to be one of 7600 companies providing cybersecurity services to the government, so there is nothing significant there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy on verifiability details what constitutes evidence of notability and encyclopaedic worthiness. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a quick note to say that this is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing and the creator is a sock of an already blocked editor. Maybe hold the close for a little while. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Although it may turn out to be G5able, it also fails WP:CORP by a wide margin. The references that appear to be vaguely independent and reliable are SEO or press releases:  . SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2018 (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.