Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Security Certification Initiative

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. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Security Certification Initiative

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

appears to be a non-notable initiative created by Eurosmart, which itself may have notability as a non-profil smart card and smart device security advocate. However the only references I can find to this sub-project of theirs is their own first-party website and one relatively innocuous pdf from the Federal Business Council. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added one reference, a single sentence in a brief summary of the parent organisation. That doesn't seem enough to establish notability though. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is less than a week old and has improved since creation. Let's give it some time. ~KvnG 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's now been listed for over a week and still has one source. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the hurry? ~KvnG 04:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since you !voted keep, have you bothered to look for sources? your !keep vote fails to address how any notability criterion is being met. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my appeal to keep is not policy-based. I believe it is a valid position as per WP:UCS. What's the hurry? ~KvnG 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense says to me that 2 weeks after listing and no significant coverage found it is definitely not notable. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. lacks significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.