Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Hat Rally


 * 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. Not counting J04n's opinion, as I'm unable to understand what argument they intend to make.  Sandstein  18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

White Hat Rally

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable charitable organization. See WP:NOBLECAUSE. Only "press" has been in computer magazines, which does not meet the cross-spectrum requirement to establish notability. As beneficial as this event might be, it's not encyclopedic at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As original creator of the page I had waited until I thought the event / organisation had gained enough notability. I notice that others have contributed to the content, and I'm sure it will be expanded further. The references given are largely from the computer press as that's where my knowledge is, and it is the sector targeted given the origins of WHR. Within the Information Security sector WHR is widely known in the UK, and I've seen online references as far away as Australia. There are 40+ pages of search results on google, and, while not recognised, many press interviews on youtube. Much of the coverage is electronic, and therefore transient. There have been articles in printed press (outside the IT industry), such as the Rutland Mercury and other local newspapers, council publications, and several times in Business Link Magazine. WHR is part of a larger organisation, White Hat Events, that have combined coverage that hasn't been referenced as citations used were about the rally specifically. WHE includes a ball for almost 1000 people each year in London, a London marathon team, and other events. We receive a lot of media attention due to our supporters, such as BT, KPMG, Deloitte, IBM, NCC Group plc, LLoyds, and others. Hopefully others more familiar with daily papers will come forward with evidence to allow this page to be retained. Much of the media coverage is not online, so not readily verified. If the articles where scanned and placed online (recognising the copyright owners) for the purpose of this discussion, would that help? Let's see what the community think. Ml-crest (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to demonstrate some of the harder to find media articles I've added some links to the Rutland Times article from 2012 (I was the interviewee), and from 2011 an interview on Isle of Wight Radio with member of the Mini Medics team.Gambler2073 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I located this article from the Rutland and Stamford Mercury local newspaper Rutland news Ml-crest (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Radio interview - Isle of Wight Radio interview Ml-crest (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - has coverage in both local and tech news, as well as overseas. –  SJ  +  02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ( t  •  c ) 01:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There are sources, but most are just passing mentions. Not fully convinced this is notable enough for inclusion. It is telling that an editor has to upload a local article to drop box to claim its notable. SalHamton (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have deleted the link to the Rutland Mercury article both here and in the article because it is a copyvio and links to copyright violations are not allowed an Wikipedia.  It is acceptable to reference the article, and I would have left the reference in the article, if only some usable details had been given such as date and page number.  References do not have to be online, if they can be viewed in a library or accessible archive that is good enough.  Same goes for the IoW Radio interview.  Spinning  Spark  15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator's claim that "cross-spectrum" coverage is not supported by our WP:GNG so I see no reason to discout those sources. J04n(talk page) 10:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; I think what BWilkins means is that the sources are neither reliable nor independent of the subject (i.e., corporate or industry). Industry publications are known for their lack of editorial oversight. What I don't see in this article's sources are links to mainstream media.  Mini  apolis  13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see this and this as problems. J04n(talk page) 15:13, 12 April 2013 (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.