Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth generation cyberattack (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Fifth generation cyberattack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Although this page seems like a little bit of marketing, I don't think it should be deleted. This term has been used by several other sources so I don't think we can accuse Checkpoint of creating this article to bolster their credibility. –——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This account has been created today, and has made few edits outside deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: This doesn't really fit the General notability guideline in my opinion; the only sources I could find about this term are either Wikipedia mirrors, other company websites, or only have a trivial mention. It seems to be a term used by Checkpoint that has not entered general usage. - Sonicwave ( talk )  18:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can not find any reliable sources for the notability of this term. I have taken the time to review all the references in the article, and this is the result:
 * The lead paragraph has been "sourced" by an unrelated article. Diff 1
 * The whole "Defining characteristics" section has been entirely made up per WP:SYNTH: None of these sources actually say anything about the article topic. Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5
 * At this point, I have added an  tag to the article. Diff 6
 * There has been citation overkill (see this essay) with unreliable sources, press releases, marketing blog posts, YouTube interviews. Diff 7, Diff 8, Diff 9, Diff 10, Diff 11
 * The sentence, previously the sentence with the most citations in the article, consequently turned out to be original research as well. Diff 12
 * The last reference that said anything about the article topic turned out to be a login-walled source. Using Google Cache, I was able to access it. Below the source, I found the following notice about the source's author: -- That's the same company that, the article creator, has declared to work for. Not a reliable source, and original research as well. Diff 13
 * There are some reliable sources left, but they say nothing about the article topic and are just describing the general cybersecurity situation of the world.
 * The article, in its revised state, can sadly somehow be described like this: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SYNTH intended to establish one vendor's preferred neologism (WP:NEO). Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a marketing term with no clear meaning that's only used in marketing. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are no articles detailing "generations of cyberattacks" prior to this supposed "fifth generations", which is a marketing term constructed by CheckPoint Security (the same company who created this wiki page). The article also makes unsubstantiated claims such as despite there being no widespread use of such terminology outside of recent CheckPoint articles and op-eds.    MalwareTechBlog (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Something between WP:OR and WP:NEO. The term itself and the whole notion of "generations" were apparently introduced/invented at Checkpoint. None of the sources support that it was used anywhere else than in their material, blogs and op-eds (If such sources did exist, I'm pretty sure they'd have added them by now). The sources that do exist only describe that attacks got more sophisticated over time. If "generations of cyberattacks" was actually a widely used concept there would be no lack of sources actually dealing with it, and they would go back for years. Averell (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, understanding that edits are needed. I'm the original author, let me make a few points.
 * It is well understood in the industry that significant changes have occurred in recent years. In particular, nearly all coverage of WannaCry and NotPetya characterized them as significantly different from previous attacks. It's true that the article title I chose reflects terminology used by my employer; but I don't know a better term to describe the current state of things.
 * When I came to Wikipedia, the definition of Cyberattack was essentially frozen at 2010. I feel that was a great disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Things have changed a great deal in 8 years.
 * I made every effort to engage other Wikipedia editors for input. The result may not be perfect, but I object to the characterization of my actions (beginning, as far as I can tell, with this tweet) as being "gross." I discussed the article with prior to publishing, and have also discussed with  and . My aim has always been to work in support of the Wikipedia community, not to subvert it. There's no need to make this personal, I feel it is beneath the Wikipedia community to do so.
 * One specific place where I acknowledge my version was problematic: as I've learned more about Wikipedia and about the source, I see I should not have included the Business Day article; it's not up to the WP:RS standard. There are, however, other sources that are independent of my employer that discuss the 5 generations -- some with reference to our company, and some without. It's been my belief that when an established, independent source covers a concept, that would help confer notability -- whether or not they quote my colleagues.
 * I think it's important to consider what Wikipedia's readers are seeking. The page views for this article have increased since I first submitted it, and have actually surpassed those for the main cyberattack article. The initial spike preceded the tweet I linked above, and I have made no special effort to promote the article -- so I think this demonst\es there's interest in the topic out there. See |Fifth_generation_cyberattack pageview results.
 * I can see it's possible this article will be deleted, but I hope others in the discussion will consider these points. It's important for Wikipedia to have up-to-date information about a topic like this. I tried to avoid a promotional tone by keeping my company's name out of the article; perhaps there is more that needs to be done to avoid that, but I don't think that outright deletion is in the best interests of Wikipedia's readers. -Cindy (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We did not discuss this page specifically. I do not appreciate being name-dropped at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would help to specify which Wikipedia notability policy the subject meets. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cyberattack is a notable topic. This material was WP:SPLIT out of that article. We can talk about whether this actually deserves its own article or should be merged back to Cyberattack but the nom and most of the participants have (rightfully) whizzed right past that to more serious WP:NEO and WP:OR concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Already !voted on that basis. Curious about what Wikipedia notability policy the article author had in mind when creating the separate article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The author is an inexperienced editor who contributed generations material to Cyberattack and wanted to expand further on 5th generation but we were concerned about a potential WP:UNDUE issue in Cyberattack. So giving the inexperienced editor sort of a sandbox seemed reasonable and we'd improve organization depending on how that developed. Wikipedia is a work in progress and, if the material is bogus, it's easy enough to delete. No need for pitch forks. has been upfront about her COI and we discussed all this at Talk:Cyberattack as it was happening. ~Kvng (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what specific reliable sources you believe have been using this generations terminology. Detailed comments above claim that it is only Checkpoint. If that's so, it's a serious problem. ~Kvng (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, here is the thought process that initially lead me to believe that this topic met Wikipedia's notability standard.
 * delete and salt I've reviewed this now. This is marketing garbage dumped into WP. Shameful abuse of editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I was concerned at the time that it was just marketing material. Nothing I have seen since has changed my opinion on that score. Nothing personal, but someone with such an extreme COI had better provide some outstanding third party sources for something like this.   21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

First, the "five generations" discussed today grow out of the idea of "three generations" of firewall, which is very well established, and is prominently featured in Wikipedia's own article firewall (computing). Initially I looked at the "firewall" article, but because a firewall is not the proper tool to protect against the more recent generations, it didn't make sense to add it there, where it's only tangentially relevant. That's why I came to the cyberattack article -- because it seemed like the more natural fit. For the first three "generations," there are numerous reliable sources, which cite a wide variety of primary sources (industry experts, analysts, etc.) over many years. Just a couple examples -- more should be very easy to find if needed: TechRepublic (2002) and Computer Weekly (2012).

As I pointed out above, the definition of cyberattack had no references more recent than 2010, which I think anybody familiar with the field would agree is problematic for a rapidly evolving field. (I see that an editor here has since reverted it to that state, overriding the discussion you and I had on the talk page.)

I already listed the core articles I think establish it on Talk:Cyberattack, but here is a somewhat annotated, and updated, list:

Independent industry analysts who have used the terms -- analysts like these will communicate with companies in the industry, but this kind of piece reflects the analyst's perspective, it is not a commisioned report. I consider this a strong indication of general industry knowledge, and I believe it meets WP:RS.
 * Ovum/Informa (NEW)
 * Forrester named my company as a leader in the industry (2018), and while its report didn't mention "generations" by name, it did mention the characteristics we associate with fifth generation in its review of our offerings.
 * Frost & Sullivan issued a presentation centered around the generations. (Full disclosure, Check Point was a co-presenter, but Frost & Sullivan was the editorial "gatekeeper." Also, I haven't yet found a link to this online, still looking.)
 * Frost & Sullivan issued a presentation centered around the generations. (Full disclosure, Check Point was a co-presenter, but Frost & Sullivan was the editorial "gatekeeper." Also, I haven't yet found a link to this online, still looking.)

Earned media -- these are publishers that make their own editorial judgments. If it's an interview with Check Point personnel, or in some cases a byline by Check Point personnel, there is still independent judgment being exercised for it to be published. These are not recycled press releases, or "pay-to-play" sites.
 * Bloomberg: Check Point CEO on Safeguarding the Midterm Elections (NEW)
 * Tech Beacon: Is Your Security Team Ready for Gen V Cyberattacks? (2018) (NEW)
 * (As stated above, I'm no longer convinced this one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.)
 * (As stated above, I'm no longer convinced this one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.)
 * (As stated above, I'm no longer convinced this one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.)
 * (As stated above, I'm no longer convinced this one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.)

Industry usage -- these are companies independent of Check Point which are also using the "five generations" terminology. While they may not score high as "reliable sources," I believe their usage of the term speaks to its usage outside of my own company.

Discussion of general concepts I can see from discussion by others above that WP:SYNTH may be a concern here. But these articles also initially struck me as significant, because even though they do not use the word "generation," they discuss trends in ways that align with the "generations" thinking.

To the editor who took offense to my naming them, I am sorry. I am still getting familiar with the etiquette here; I had thought that, since we had an extensive discussion about my editing, they would be interested to know the next step in the discussion, and I honestly thought they had reviewed my edits fairly closely. I meant no disresepect. I appreciate that they took the time to weigh in here.

One last point -- I hope the admin who closes this discussion will take note that the discussion was started on Twitter, by a competitor, and a good deal of discussion and coordination took place off Wikipedia, among editors who may or may not have undisclosed conflicts of interest of their own. I don't know how much that should impact the outcome, but I hope it is at least taken into consideration. Kvng, I appreciate your taking my good intentions toward Wikipedia, and I hope our competitors in the field share my wish to approach Wikipedia with curiosity and deference to the judgment of more experienced editors. -Cindy (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: First off, this is not about cyber attacks in general, it is about this specific term an if we need an extra page for it. It is possible - and you are very welcome to - improve the cyberattack article without getting into "generations".
 * Second, the sources you provided seem to be very much "inspired" by the same source - most use the same language and imagery. Still no evidence that this is used at independent conferences, in research papers, etc. Even if the terminology were picked up by some companies, the most it would warrant would be a single remark in the cyberattack article.
 * Third, if a reputable source reports that some of your company talked about something, it does not automatically mean that they endorse that it is a term that is widely used.
 * For full disclosure: While I found this through Twitter, I have been a Wikipedia editor for many years and have no relation at all to the cyber security or ties to any vendor. I actually consider it a good thing that it brought attention to this matter. Averell (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is clearly a marketing term, there's no definition of fourth gen, third gen, second gen etc. The blogs cited above for fifth gen contain infographics directly created by the vendor who created the term, and the text is in some cases copied and pasted from their website.  For reference, I do not work for a competitor, or even cyber security vendor or reseller.  GossiTheDog 14:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: WP:PAYTALK. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This is a marketing term. It is not actually used in the industry. It needs to die so people use legitimate terms. I am a security researcher with 15 years experience admittedly at a Checkpoint competitor. I've never heard this term used outside Checkpoint's marketing material. It's clearly designed to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt  craiwill 21 August 2018  —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like internet garbage based on results of Google searches. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Really interested in the rationale for relisting this discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to digest here. I appreciate the extra time. ~Kvng (talk) 01:53, 27 August 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.