Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CybExer Technologies

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. JGHowes ^talk 23:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CybExer Technologies[edit]

[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)

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search leads me to primary sources and unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google news brings up lots of content. This needs to be researched, but definitely improved if its kept. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide us with this “contents” that show the organization has been discussed with in-depth significant coverage and most importantly; in reliable sources? Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient claims in the article to meet WP:ORGCRIT while google finds some news articles most are either minor mentions, or not in English. There is no foreign language version of the article linked. Given "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." as the criteria. Delete seems to be the best choice here. Jeepday (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A News search does bring up quite a number of hits. Sadly I don't read the ones in Russian or Estonian, but the hits in English appear to be reliable, with the company seeming to be a leader in the cyber-security field in the European Union. There are multiple mentions in article published by Baltic World and Estonian Times, where the company plays key roles in Europe-wide cyber attack simulations. There is plenty of room for improvement, but we have enough in my mind to keep and better the article rather than to delete.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Lots of mentions, but nothing in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anything available in other languages? See User:Concertmusic's comment. TY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are fair hits in google search and the company has fairly good reach in Europe. I am in agreement with Concertmusic here. One hit I found was this one, [1], showing they are providing courses in 13 different languages. The other interesting fact is they have a contract with the European Space Agency, [2]. That's actually a fairly big deal, as it's hard for companies to get contracts with ESA. There is not a lot in the English language, but a fair number of hits in Estonian. That's why I lean towards keep. I've linked the article to Eesti wiki, not much there either. But I feel it can be improved to satisfy GNG if worked on. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two new sources added in compliance with WP:RS including one showing the company provides training for the Ukrainian police cadets. The company works at the international level with governments as shown by the sources added. Significantly more exist on google news search. Article should be improved with expansion and more refs, not deleted. CosmicNotes (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2020 (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.