Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

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. Page creator is advised to review WP:RS to better understand what is mean on Wikipedia by "reliable sources". It's very specific, it is different from the common lay opinion of what is meant by "reliable" and it is required for articles on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources and references do exist.

Here are two more:

Cyber Security and Privacy: Key Principles and Tools for Older Adults - Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario (eapon.ca)

https://etalentcanada.ca/for-educators/programs/ictc-knowledge-exchange-hub Emmajp377 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your vigilance in enforcing a certain degree of verifiability to the references provided, I believe your inference that the ample links and references provided are 'unreliable' is unwarranted. The identity of all supplied sources is eminently verifiable and the information is 100% accurate. Emmajp377 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing means third party coverage about the organization in media that is fully independent of the organization. The definition of a reliable source is not "it was published by people with inside knowledge because they're directly involved", it's "the source represents a journalist independently writing and publishing media content that covers the things the organization does as news". Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources in the article are either non-independent (the organization, a parent organization, someone the organization partners with talking about their partnership) or they quote the organization on something. No source given appears to describe it other than one giving a one-sentence statement not saying much more than that it's a cybersecurity organization. Did a search to see if I could find any independent sources that discuss it in at least a couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything, other than press releases. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision that "a couple of paragraphs" of descriptive text must accompany any "independent source" is arbitrary. If you found even one of these references to be inaccurate or misleading, then say so. If not, your assertion that "all sources are either non-independent or provide an independent quote" do not establish the organization's lack of credibility. If you however believe that this organization and its mission are either not important or obsolete, then state it as such. Otherwise why trivialize the important work that this federal non-profit organization does? Emmajp377 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An independent source is either a media outlet or a book writing about the organization's work journalistically and/or analytically. It is not (a) anything that the organization or other people or organizations directly affiliated with it wrote and published themselves, or (b) the organization's founder being briefly quoted as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2024 (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.