Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RevSpace


 * 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. I'm exhausted after reading this afd Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

RevSpace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NORG

Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Three sources (from Hackaday, Vice and Stadsomroep Den Haag) have been added since, which are independent, RS and have SIGCOV. Also, the first source you cite, about the Hackermeldpunt is a initiative of RevSpace where RevSpace members are being cited, so I count that as SIGCOV. The first tree sources are definitely RS, because they both have editorial oversight. See Tweakers and NU.nl. Update: the Den Haag FM reference is a 20 minutes recording about RevSpace, so it definitely qualifies for WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" The same can be said about Hackaday which has an article primarily about RevSpace. Also, in the GNG is stated the following about SIGCOV: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is the case with the video about Zawadi, where the RevSpace part is not the main subject of the video, but it is more than a trivial mention. You state the following about NU.nl: "nu.nl doesn't appear in list of Dutch media and it appears to be a circulation of "limited interest", therefore falls short on significance.". I can present you this graph about the most visited news sites in The Netherlands published by the nl:Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek. Dwaro (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's in depth coverage and it's likely reliable and it would be fine for verifiability; however it doesn't meet significance for establishing notability, because it's a local press. It doesn't appear under articles within Media of the Netherlands. Naturally, local presses cover things that's most relevant to their locality in great depth. Per WP:ORGCRIT, greater emphasis is placed on the quality on articles about organizations and companies "follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Significance refers to the depth of the article into the subject, not the significance of the source itself. At least the Den Haag FM recording and the Hackaday article are significant. The Hackaday article is a secondary source, because it is written by a journalist of them and uses the RevSpace participants as primary sources. Referring to "It doesn't appear under articles within Media of the Netherlands.", I'm not sure which source you are talking about. NU.nl is not included in that article because it neither is public/commercial TV or printed press. They only publish online and are the most popular (reliable and independent) online news source in the country. Dwaro (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that you have to cross audience/circulation in evaluating notability for organizations/companies, to quote "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.". The school paper may have an extensive multi-page coverage ("significant") about a student body president, but the limited audience means it is significant in depth, but of "limited" circulation and interest, therefore insignificant for notability purposes. the NU.nl has only 630 views while The Oregonian has over 6,000 views, The Seattle Times has hver 9,000 and Mainichi Shimbun has over 3,000 views so that could also be an indication of limited interest. NU.nl's page view is less than my town's alternative weekly's page. Willamette_Week. Stadsomroep Den Haag has a mere 63 views per 30 days, so that maybe an indication of limited interest/circulation. Graywalls (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "that may be an indication of limited interest/circulation." That indication is proved wrong with the visitor count of the actual website, which can be found here. It states that NU.nl gets 7.1 million unique visitors every month, which makes it the largest news website in The Netherlands. You can read the English translation here. RevSpace and a project of their participants (Hackmeldpunt) get SIGCOV in that article and thus fulfills the requirement you cited. So, to summarize my current criticism on your table for per source: 1. NU.nl about Hackmeldpunt: it is SIGCOV because Hackmeldpunt is exclusively a RevSpace project. NU.nl is RS. 2. Tweakers article: this USB flash drive research took place within RevSpace and would probably not happened without RevSpace. The name may be a trivial mention in the article, but a source can be SIGCOV without it being the primary subject. To quote, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ". Tweakers is also RS. 3. Second NU.nl article: same criticism as previous source. 4. Hackaday: This is SIGCOV, because the whole article is about RevSpace. The article is written and published by an independent entity. It uses the RevSpace participants as primary source, so it is a secondary source. 5. Den Haag FM: the recording is SIGCOV, it features a 20 minute discussion about RevSpace. 6. Several sources that have been added since are not included in this table, such as articles from security.nl, The Register, CSO Online by IDG and an academic MSc thesis which mentions RevSpace 44 times. Dwaro (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Case studies and such are regularly done for academic projects. I am not sure if academic thesis would constitute establishment of notability. Discuss that thesis on the talk page of the article. Graywalls (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not moving that to the talk page, because it should stay visible to other AfD participants. That academic source is significant, reliable, independent and secondary. What do you disagree with? You also included this discussion in the companies-related discussions, but RevSpace is not a company. It is a non-profit organization, which is clearly stated in the beginning of the article since it was made. Again, a new source has been added from the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, while they film multiple minutes inside the RevSpace building. Dwaro (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "that" academic source? Direct link please. Graywalls (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this one. Dwaro (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

nay on reliability establishment by that source. Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Regarding the master's theses in general see Reliable_sources/NoticeboardGraywalls (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not evaluated this, this, and this source and also not incorporated any change since my criticism on the other sources, except the academic one. The first is published by Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, the second is Computerworld and the third one is The Register. Dwaro (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article references multiple independent, significant and reliable sources that clearly establish notability. To summarize: The organisation received dedicated coverage in a television report by the NOS, the main Dutch public news broadcaster. There are two articles published on Nu.nl (the top most-read news website of the Netherlands) centred entirely around the organisation and its initiatives. International publications such as The Register and Hackaday featured RevSpace on their platforms. The discovery of a security vulnerability in a data storage product sold by one of the Netherlands' largest retailers (HEMA) received nationwide coverage by various publications, such as the aforementioned Nu.nl and the popular technology website Tweakers.net. Another notable event generated by the organisation, the establishment of a hacker hotline, elicited significant coverage both national and abroad. As it currently stands I think this article could almost be considered as a stub. If anything it could do with some expansion, for which there seems to be ample potential.Thomastheo (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , without having English version of the video, I'm not able to see how much of the discussion goes into the organization RevSpace, so I'm not able to analyze this one. Did the reporter discuss in-depth on the organization itself? Graywalls (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Indeed she did. Thomastheo (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it would really help if there's transcription text so I can run it through Google Translate. Graywalls (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment My vote is still keep, but let's continue the debate here so it is clear that it happens after the relisting. I have commented on the noticeboard, see here. I argue that it is WP:RS because the thesis was supervised by Albert Benschop and the University of Amsterdam would definitely be accredited in a US context, it is listed as the 123th best university in the world. I see you updated the table with sources. I disagree with your evaluation about the The Register article. The article is primarily about the action that RevSpace took, and gives some further explanation on the actions of the criminal for context. For the Computerworld article, the same applies. To quote from WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.". Notice the merely. We have multiple sources about events initiated by RevSpace. RevSpace was maybe in that article associated with the event of the attack, but the article was primarily about their initiative of assisting someone in becoming more ethical. Dwaro (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * reply to comment Not disagreeing that it's reliable in the contents; however I maintain that it does not reliably establish notability. There's plenty of discussions in the noticeboard which shows plenty of precedent of higher level consensus regarding such sources. Graywalls (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Not disagreeing that it's reliable in the contents;". Okay, then you should update your table. The source is for sure reliable, secondary and independent. The author used RevSpace participants as a primary source, the thesis itself is a secondary source. He regularly visited the location for his analysis, which is useful or even required for a scientific thesis. That's not dependence. Please also comment on my other remarks. Dwaro (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The author directly visited RevSpace and interacted with them, and wrote his own research. This is what makes it a primary source. A zoologist could make repeated visits to a certain pet monkey in the course of writing a paper. Even if that paper is considered a break-through in science, that paper doesn't make the monkey notable no matter how extensively and reliably it documents things related to that monkey. This is entirely a different issue from whether what's written in that paper about the monkey is accurate or not. It's still not notable. If that monkey receives significant coverage in significant audience reach media about how much of an important role it had in the scientific discovery, then the monkey may indeed deserve its own page Graywalls (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This example is flawed. Paper about a monkey in a respected peer reviewed journal would be a perfect reliable source for notability (with usual exceptions eg. MERDS). Pavlor (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Graywalls has not replied to my criticism posted on 13:14, 14 December 2019 and 09:52, 18 December 2019, except for the academic source. I am convinced that the conclusion about several sources is currently incorrect. Dwaro (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The other sources have been added to the chart. Except the NOS, which I'm unable to evaluate at this point since it's in a foreign language and transcription that I can feed into Google Translate is not available. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh what I meant is that a peer reviewed journal about an investigation involving monkeys might deserve an article regarding the topic or the findings, but not about the specific Research monkey number 11 or the research animal keeping facility of Anytown University Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to examine the claims made in the table above. Firstly, with regard to the Nu.nl article, the assertion that it constitutes trivial coverage does not hold water, as the article is dedicated entirely to coverage of an initiative undertaken by RevSpace. It is further claimed that the circulation of Nu.nl needs to be taken into account, and therefore the article is 'of limited interest', thus falling short of significance. This assertion is demonstrably false, as the entity in question (Nu.nl) is the single most read news site in the Netherlands. Graywalls then claims that the article on Tweakers.net is trivial, failing to recognize that the entire article is focused solely on the reporting of an event that was generated by RevSpace, and also missing the fact that Tweakers.net is the most popular technology news site of the Netherlands. The third entry in the table, an independently published article concerning the same event, published by the aforementioned Nu.nl, is once again erroneously rejected as trivial, with no supporting arguments given as to why this would be so. The following entry, a blog post published by NYC resistor, an entirely independent organisation, is written off as 'obviously primary/self-published'. This claim is once again demonstrably false, as neither the author nor the organisation they belong to is in any way connected to RevSpace. The article published by Vice Magazine about a participant of RevSpace does indeed focus mainly on a subject beyond the scope of the article, although I would suggest that it still strengthens the claim of notability somewhat, as RevSpace remains relevant within the context of the article. The following entry, a publication on Hackaday.com, claims that this source is "a blog which publishes several articles each day about hardware and software hacks, and is therefore an issue of limited interest" as per the guidelines on notability with regard to audience. I cannot follow the logic of this claim. Hackaday is one of the most respected and popular weblogs in the field of technology and hacking, with a wide international readership and a large active community. The next entry, the radio interview broadcast by Den Haag FM, is written off as local coverage. According to Graywalls, due to the fact that the Netherlands is smaller than half the size of a US state, the concept of 'region' somehow does not apply. I am unsure as to what is being suggested here, but it certainly does not appear to be a valid argument. The entry that follows, regarding an academic publication featuring extensive mentions of RevSpace in a manner central to its subject, is dismissed as unreliable by virtue of the claim that an object of academic study, such as a monkey, does not automatically become notable as a result of the fact that it is studied. I fail to see how this wildly non-analogous characterization applies here, and no explanation is given as to why it would. Graywalls further rejects the coverage of RevSpace by The Register as 'rather trivial', with the accompanying assertion that 'local companies sometimes come forward relating to the breaking news at the time. For example, when things out in the public are vandalized, local businesses that can repair it may come forward and their words maybe quoted. That would not count towards the notability of that business." Once again, I cannot see how this characterization is at all relevant to the coverage in question. The article neither concerns events local to the readership of The Register, nor does it concern a business or even the reporting of a crime. Lastly, another article primarily concerning a member of RevSpace published by Computerworld, is deemed trivial. While I agree with Graywalls that this mention of an event connected to a member alone does not provide evidence for notability, I do claim (similarly to the Vice Magazine article) that the context does. The organisation of RevSpace and its actions in reaction to subject of the article are mentioned explicitly and prominently in the first paragraph of the article, even before the subject himself. It seems clear to me that, even if we put aside the sources focused primarily on participants of RevSpace in stead of the organisation itself, there are still ample sources left to establish notability. Thomastheo (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * reply to comment It's a generally accepted consensus that thesis does not reliably establish notability as you can confirm in the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which wraps up why the thesis can not be used for notability credit. The NYC resistor is a group blog that is a primary and self published, which means it would not provide any credit towards notability. WP:UGC. I can visit your shop, interview you and write about it in depth on my blog and the entire thing by its nature would be a primary source, self-published blog. Per WP:NORG, this can not be used in establishing the notability of your organization. Even if you already had a Wikipedia page about you, even including such a source in the article at all is on a shaky ground. Please refer to WP:RS and "Secondary sources for notability" in WP:USEPRIMARY. As for Hackaday, "respected and popular weblogs in the field of technology and hacking" it's still a blog, and as you said it's of something specific in the field of "technology and hacking" which means limited "general" interest.


 * I am curious how you came across this AfD. I see the last you have edited on Wikipedia is nearly two years ago. I am not making any assumptions, but are you related to the organization in anyway or if you were notified outside of Wikipedia? Graywalls (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * reply to comment You are indeed correct in stating that the included blog posts cannot not contribute to notability for this article. As you point out, I not a regular contributor, and am indeed new to participating on this side of wikipedia, and after a more close reading of the guidelines in question, I see that I was in error. Thank you for correcting me on this point. As per your second comment, I do indeed visit revspace, and came across the article's nomination through regular use of this site. I did of course look up whether it was appropriate for me to comment on the article's deletion before doing so, but as I understand it anyone acting in good faith can participate in these discussion. Thomastheo (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone can indeed participate, however: it did draw my attention because you have not edited in nearly a two year and suddenly started contributing into the AfD. If you're participating in Wikipedia editing on a subject you have a connection to, such connection is expected to be disclosed upfront per WP:DISCLOSE in non-ambiguous ways. Also, regarding Den Haag FM, it is described as "LOCAL" radio in Stadsomroep Den Haag. Is this not correct? Assuming that it is correct, then the "local coverage" don't contribute much towards notability per WP:NORG and WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think merely visiting a place constitutes a conflict of interest here. I do not represent this organisation in any official capacity. As for Den Haag FM, its scope is unambiguously indicated in its name; it serves the region of The Hague, which includes the city proper as well as the surrounding region. Regardless, the notability guidelines you refer to clearly state that solely local coverage is not an indication of notability, but that is not the case here. It has been extensively pointed out, by me and others, that the article includes multiple significant and reliable references with both national and international reach. You have yet to address points of criticism regarding your evaluation of these sources. Thomastheo (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand it's a relatively small group. If you're a member/regular there, I'd say that's much more connected than someone is connected to a 7-Eleven that they just shopped at. From the discussion above, it seems like you aren't quite familiar with sourcing  guidelines. In depth coverage in group blogs, specific interest blogs, but relatively sparse coverage in national and international coverage don't combine together to establish notability. The concept of "regional" might be different in Europe than in the US. It is only you, and the article's creator that have participated so far., are you personally affiliated with the RevSpace? Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The example of a 7-eleven does not help to illustrate how it would be a conflict of interest for me to participate in this discussion. Once again, we are here to discuss notability and sources, and I point out that you still refuse to adequately address them. You are right to point out I am still coming to grips with sourcing guidelines, but that does not automatically render my criticisms invalid. I do not think it is the purpose of this forum to discount commentary merely on the basis of who delivers it. We discuss the matter at hand, and where you have made good points I have conceded. As far as I am aware, this is how wikipedia is supposed to function, is it not?Thomastheo (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you these questions to better understand the level of connection and possible WP:COI if any. Are you just a casual guest? a member? a voting member? Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Revspace is registered as a 'stichting', a Dutch legal entity that has no 'members' at all, voting or otherwise. The organisation is wholly controlled by a board of directors (see RevSpace), of which I am not part. I do not stand to gain in any way from editing or contributing to this discussion, either personally, politically, financially or academically. Thomastheo (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Addressing "The article neither concerns events local to the readership of The Register, nor does it concern a business or even the reporting of a crime". The Register article is about a criminal defendant and their computer crime; and local group wanting to offer the defendant with diversion plans. So, say there's a regional paper titled "local tire shop wants to fix dozens of school buses that had tires flattened in an overnight vandalism spree" that focuses on the vandalism, the juvenile defendants and their extensive criminal history. My point is that this article would not establish notability for the tire business. My analogy is that RevSpace's position in the Register is comparable to that of the local business offering to fix the bus tires. Is this a little clearer? Graywalls (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. The primary subject of the article is the reaction of RevSpace, and not the crime. The publication is in a different country, to suggest that it is akin to local business reporting on a flat tire does not strike me as fair. The Register chose to publish an article about the reaction of RevSpace because they deemed it newsworthy, and not the event to which the reaction pertains. Thomastheo (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Article being discussed, which discusses the crime and criminals, a 19 year old and a 16 year old; and that 16 year old cyber criminal is a RevSpace member.. and an organization to which he was a member came forward to want to "re-educate". I just don't really see this demonstrating major notability for that organization (RevSpace). As for size/region/national/international debate, each country in the EU could be seen as individual states/provinces in the US. The population of the entire Nethelands is comparable to that of the US State of Ohio. The "Hague Region" is quite comparable to the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area population, but less than the Seattle metropolitan area. So I think the description in Den Haag FM as "local" is correct and I would compare it to in-depth coverage in a radio station such as KXL-FM. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article references multiple independent, significant and reliable sources that clearly establish notability. Claiming that sources like nu.nl are too small ignores that it is the one of the largest news sites in the Netherlands, and by also requiring physical printing you are setting standards that would exclude any source other than NYT/WP sized papers. Hackaday is also one of the largest DIY tech sites, which you also dismiss as insignificant without evidence. And you also claim that NYC Resistor is not independent, again without any evidence. Autopilot (talk)
 * NYC Resistor's contents is very obviously primary source. When you look at the information about the site, it's quite obviously a group blog. I put "?" on dependence/independence. Hackaday, for notability purposes, I would have to say is of limited WP:AUD, because it is not the mainstream. "NYC Resistor is a hacker collective with a shared space located in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn. We meet regularly to share knowledge, hack on projects together, and build community." A person Holly associated with that group visited the RevSpace; then wrote about experience on its group blog. That's a fair evidence of limited audience and I wouldn't call it "reliably" published as Wikipedia puts it, thus not an establishment of notability. It's essentially a journal of one person. Regarding independent/depedent, WP:ORGIND maybe of value to read. It's not like the USA Today, or the New York Times. Re: Hackaday: see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Graywalls (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment My vote is still keep. I do still disagree with a large part of your evaluation. The primary subject of all these articles you evaluated are about RevSpace and its initiatives This holds true for the Hacker Hotline, HEMA USB drive research, DDoS event where RevSpace participants wanted helped with ethics advice, LoRa reverse engineering, RevBank, the article where RevSpace participants argued in the news about the government policy, and the NOS source that had an item about RevSpace (but indeed not the article about Zawadi). You marked all these sources as not having significant coverage, which I thus disagree with. All these events together contribute to the notability of the organisation. You also did not added the NOS source, but it has been evaluated by me and Thomastheo that it is discussing the organization itself in-depth. Your comparison between the size of The Netherlands and the US do not make sense, WP:AUD is applied the same to every country, regardless of its scale. “each country in the EU could be seen as individual states/provinces in the US”. The EU is not a country. Its members are sovereign countries, like the US itself. Den Haag FM is, as Thomastheo also points out, a radio for the region of The Hague. Dwaro (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I explained it in terms of circulation and population. Entire Netherlands has about the same people as the Ohio, USA. My comparison to a local radio here in my town with similar population reach is fair and logical. You didn't address if you're associated with RevSpace in anyway. Graywalls (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Like Thomastheo also said: I do not stand to gain in any way from editing or contributing to this discussion, either personally, politically, financially or academically. I do still disagree with the radio evaluation, and even if I agreed about this, WP:AUD says: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This is not the case here, there are multiple national and internation sources. Dwaro (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * comment so far, there's only been one outside input from those other than the article creator and a RevSpace member. Another relist maybe beneficial. It would also provide more time to analyze the video source NOS which is in foreign language Graywalls (talk) 21:50, 22 December 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.