Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco certifications

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 no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco certifications[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG, I see no reason to keep this article. The references don't demonstrate significant coverage, as they are almost all from Cisco or blogs (which are not sufficient). TheCascadian 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles reads like a course registration booklet. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the right platform for this information. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Article is part of the Information security certifications category. Also Refrence 11 is not from Cisco.com the material itself will be from Cisco.com mostly due to them having to document how they run and base there courses on. I respect the guideline but I do not believe it applies here due to the nature of what we are talking about. certifications made and designed by a business will allways be designed and explained in the most complete detail by the business themselves. Also most other articles in that group will need to be deleted if this goes through for the same reason. you may wish to save your time and simply request a deletion for all items in the category. Andrdema (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 11 ([1]) is one of the few references that isn't from Cisco itself, and even then it's not significant coverage. You are correct that it makes sense that some of the references are from Cisco itself, since they document their own certifications. However, that isn't the issue at hand. References from Cisco don't constitute independent sources or significant media coverage, so the article topic is not notable. Lastly, you are correct that several other articles in that group will need to be deleted if this one is deleted. If this article ends up deleted, it will establish a precedent for deletion of several others. TheCascadian 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this certification is fairly significant. I don't know how to get statistics for it. Article really needs to be improved to have this information to be of encyclopedic value. [2], [3] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one looks like a good source for CCNA, but not all certifications. The second one seems like an eHow-type article. TheCascadian 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anyone even vaguely familiar with IT know that these certifications are industry standard, and pretty much required to work in IT. The sourcing could use improvement, but a notable topic nonetheless. Here are some sources that may help. A B C D E F G. I could find many more, not sure much WP:BEFORE was done prior to this nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those references appear to be from training/certification services, and therefore wouldn't qualify as independent sources. TheCascadian 01:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you trying to say that the fact that multiple accredited universities and colleges offer Cisco certifications is somehow a reason to delete this article? If that is the case then here are some more sources that aren't from training websites, A B C D E F G H I J K. I still say keep plenty of sourcing if you look for it. Obviously the easiest to find links are to training sites because that's normally what people looking up these certifications want to know about. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that multiple accredited universities offer cisco certifications is irrelevant to the topic's notability. Please reread WP:GNG. I also recommend WP:RS. I don't see how online definitions pages like those you posted from techopedia and about.com qualify. Lastly, you say it is easiest to find links to training sites, but that's beside the point. The point is that those sites are not independent and therefore do not establish notability. See WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on on secondary sources, not primary sources and original research. TheCascadian 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were also several news sites that I referenced as well that you failed to mention. What is wrong with the IT World Canada source, or the CRN news sources, or the New Jersey Journal article. My point with the training sites, is that you have to dig deeper for sources because several pages of google results will be solely training sites, some of which have contracted with Cisco and aren't an independent source. However, many of these accredited universities offer it because it is so widely recognized in the industry and not because they have contracted with Cisco, thus they can be used as secondary sources, and the information given on the school websites can be used to support the article. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a topic of importance to technical people that are likely to turn to Wikipedia for information. If the encyclopedia covers topics like MSCE or CompTIA then this is well in-bounds. --AlexWCovington (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a brochure or course/sales catalog for Cisco. This subject does not warrant an independent article apart from the main Cisco article. Stesmo (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge all sub articles into this. This is clearly a notable topic, but the article itself is badly written. It should be largely blown up and a single article (perhaps under this title) should be created which merges Cisco Certified Entry Networking Technician, CCNA, CCIE Certification, and any others into a single comprehensive article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2015 (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.