Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SANS Institute


 * 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) ansh 666 04:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

SANS Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. I looked using both names and I see only PR-content, and mentions in passing and other low quality sources. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete - The references are to the subject's own website, except one that does not appear to reference the subject at all.--Rpclod (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Wow, what a WP:BEFORE failure:
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/data_center_cloud_security_survey_sans/
 * http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/11/homeland-security-fast-track-hiring-1000-new-cyber-personnel/123528/
 * http://www.networkworld.com/article/2992503/security/sans-20-critical-security-controls-you-need-to-add.html
 * http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/feature/Amid-ongoing-threats-network-security-training-gains-appeal
 * http://dailybruin.com/2015/11/04/uc-mandates-cybersecurity-awareness-training-for-all-employees/
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-cybersecurity-senate-poised-to-pass-bill-to-push-sharing-2015-10
 * In reviewing these, I did skip over a bunch of press release results in a google news search, but just because SANS is a for-profit, self-promoting organization, doesn't mean it's not notable. Full disclosure: I've attended their conferences and worked through their certifications in the early 2000's, and they're a legitimately notable organization. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I maintain my above delete vote. The above articles only contain peripheral references or quotes from persons associated with the subject.  There is no substantive discussion of the subject itself that indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you, in fact, know anything about computer security? I'd challenge you to find anyone else who knows anything about infosec who thinks they're not notable. Here's a couple more: http://it.slashdot.org/story/02/10/03/2224219/sansfbi-release-top-20-security-vulnerabilities, http://www.zdnet.com/article/sans-institute-embarrasses-fbi/, and finally https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sans+institute&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=. While I think listing Google search results in general is silly, the Google Scholar search, 515,000 hits, demonstrates that the organization actively curates and publishes practical research in the field of computer, information, and network security. Or maybe http://www.purdue.edu/securePurdue/training/SANStraining.cfm?  Where all do you want me to go with this?  The organization is notable, the current article is bleh. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You show a number of mentions in passing. Please note that being mentioned in passing by a bunch of sources does not count. Can you show at least one article, in a reliable, mainstream source, that has in-depth focus on SANS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That would, in fact, be your job, not mine. Posting the same response to multiple editors is unhelpful, and you should know better.  Your only proper course of action at this point is to withdraw the nomination and start helping clean up the admittedly inferior article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have, in fact, carried out the required searches. Per D2, I have determined that the existing sources are inadequate. Now, it is your time to read WP:NCOMPANY and WP:RS, as the poor quality sources you are presenting are not sufficient (IMHO) to warrant keeping this poor article. We require in-depth, non-local, reliable coverage, not just a bunch of mentions in passing in trade journals/local sources/press releases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep Yeah, the current article is a stinking pile of ***, but I see them referenced often enough in tech news, that I'd be quite surprised if they weren't notable. It may be more useful to search for "GSEC" or "GIAC Security Essentials Certification" (for the certification they apparently hand out) when looking for sources. —Ruud 14:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like a decent source: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-future-of-cybersecurity-could-be-sitting-in-an-office-in-new-jersey/266849/
 * Some more targeted searched: site:nytimes.com "SANS Institute", site:wired.com "SANS Institute", site:cnn.com "SANS Institute", etc.
 * —Ruud 17:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Guideline-wanking aside, any topic (person, organization, concept, ...) that is frequently mentioned in major news publications should have an article in an encyclopedia. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia: to let people find background information on stuff they see mentioned elsewhere. Anyone who questions this, should seriously reconsider what they are doing here. (Now, how extensive of an article we are able to write with the available sources, is an entirely different matter, of course.) —Ruud 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong, Speedy Keep: Notability is established by external sources, not those used in articles. Whatever is used in article is to back claims of the volunteers which have included them. Tag it with primary, but don't be lazy. A lazy Google News search (with some boolean filtering to exclude press releases) will turn up significant coverage. Sans' works and publications are known and frequently cited within the industry and by professionals.
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26287517
 * http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/sans-internet-storm-center/
 * https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09/03/java-security-hole-microsoft/
 * http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=4627300 (DOI: 10.1109/WISTDCS.2008.16)
 * http://darkmatters.norsecorp.com/2015/07/06/angler-exploit-kits-cryptowall-3-0-campaign-highly-evasive/
 * http://www.computerworld.com/article/2486682/cybercrime-hacking/300-victims-report-fake-support-calls-to-security-org.html
 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/20/new-cyberthreat-report-by-sans-institute-delivers-chilling-warning-to-healthcare-industry/
 * -- dsprc   [talk]  16:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You show a number of mentions in passing. Please note that being mentioned in passing by a bunch of sources does not count. Can you show at least one article, in a reliable, mainstream source, that has in-depth focus on SANS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per User:Jclemens and User:Dsprc ~Kvng (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can show me which of the sources they show has reliable, in-depth coverage of a subject? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll choose these: ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for selecting them. Let me now offer my commentary on them, in light of NCOMPANY requirement that sources should cover the topic in-depth, be reliable and non-local (that also incudes not niche/trade journal).
 * [: [[Forbes]] - reliable? Yes. Non-local? Of course. In-depth? No, the subject is not SANS, but some cyberthreat discovered by them. Per WP:PRODUCT and even more explicitly, WP:NOTINHERIT, even if a company's product or service generates coverage, this only serves to make this product or service notable, not the company itself.
 * : The Atlantic. Yes, yes, and no. Again, the article is about a project run by SANS, not SANS itself.
 * : ZDnet: Maybe, yes, and again: fails, because it discusses the vulnerabilities report released by them, not the organization.
 * I'll ask again: is there a single reliable source that discusses SANS institute? It's history, importance, achievements, etc.? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your commentary but I see things differently. ~Kvng (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your privilege, but do note that WP:NCOMPANY is a set of policies that are expected to determine the outcome of such discussions, not our own personal opinions and views. Per WP:ILIKEIT and related invalid vote rationales. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I believe mine is a policy-based opinion. I am not a newbie to these discussions. We are disagreeing not about notability policy but about what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes significant coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The WP:GNG is met, which is sufficient to establish notability. 2) WP:NGO is met as well, which is a bonus. Your continued arguing against SANS' notability demonstrates nothing more that you are incapable or unwilling (I'm AGF'ing that it's the latter) to use Google. I shouldn't have to remind you that a reference doesn't have to be ENTIRELY about the topic to support notability--The first paragraph of http://www.businessweek.com/panelists/51388-alan-paller does just fine. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that source any example of coverage in depth? The topic is not SANS, but Alan Paller. All that we learn about SANS from the first paragraph is half a sentence: "a graduate college and security training and research institution with more than 135,000 alumni in 72 countries". This does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, nor GNG, which requires that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". How is SANS addressed here? Those are articles about vulnerabilities it discovered, people who work for it, etc., and they mention the organization only in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as the current article seems better and convincingly keepable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you mind elaborating? I still haven't seen a single in-depth, reliable source shown. All I see is a bunch of WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments, backed up by counts of in-passing mentions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say I haven't looked closely at any of these listed links but it seems like it may be improvable. SwisterTwister   talk  08:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, "seems like it may be improvable" seems to me straight out of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep SANS Institute is highly published, although it is in an esoteric industry which does not get a lot of mainstream media attention. For example, http://www.networkworld.com/article/2253570/security/information-security-and-business-strategy-part-1.html "Stephen Northcutt is so widely published, cited and respected in our field that I had trouble deciding which of his many Web sites to cite." Sbwoodside (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2015 (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.