Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Information Security Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Multiple keep arguments by a single user, as well. --Coredesat 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Information Security Association

Professional Information Security Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy deleted by me as an article about an organisation that made no assertion of notability. Article's creator, who is connected to the subject of the article has argued that they are notable, have advised government agencies and points the following Google search [1]. As I am not linguistically capable of evaluating those ghits, I am listing the article for deletion so that we can have wider community input on the matter. I remain minded that this organisation does not meet our notability standards but make no opinion pending an evaluation of those ghits. WjBscribe 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


I put forth the following links (of more than 10,000 thanks to an independent google.com) from different sources for PISA in support for it being notable.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?num=100&hl=zh-TW&q=pisa+professional+information+security+association&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=lr%3D

http://www.google.com.hk/search?num=100&hl=zh-TW&q=%E5%B0%88%E6%A5%AD%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%89%E5%8D%94%E6%9C%83&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=lr%3Dlang_zh-T

I do appreciate your point of view and I'd further appreciate if you would attempt the following google link and search for our organization. It comes out with more than 10,000 links and citations from different sources after being established since 2001.

Mailcpathetsang Talk 01:09, 23 April 2007

  • Delete The first search is invalid because it doesn't use quotes, merely searching for pisa+professional+independent+security+association. This means that even inside the first 50 GHIts, the search is picking up irrelevant hits from combinations of those words. A more correct search, for PISA+"Professional Information Security Association" reveals just 179 unique hits [2]. Given this, the fact that no notability is claimed, and the complete lack of sources, I have to go with a delete, though I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong. EliminatorJR Talk 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to Delete User EliminatorJR's discusion on "correct search" is not the most correct because the acronym is included in the search. A better search should be performed using English and Chinese. It reveals 2,050 unique hits. About 30% of the name is cited in Chinese newspapers. [3] Nonetheless thanks to EliminatorJR for pointing out other forms of search under Googles which reveals a more realistic results. Mailcpathetsang Talk 11:28 pm 2007/4/24


  • Speedy Delete. It is the responsibility of the editors of an article to assert notability. This article makes no attempt to assert any kind of notability. This article is nothing more than spam for this association. The assertion that some number of g-hits makes something notable is not true. In any case, 180 hits supports a finding that this group is not notable. Vegaswikian 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to Delete Vegaswikian's reasoning ignored the definition of notability, which is "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." [4] "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." It is believed that Vegaswikian has other non-bias consideration for a speedy delete rather than a normal delete. It is appreciated that Vegaswikian could further prove this thought process on a logical basis. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • Not to Delete Vegaswikian's reasoning on spam is another example of labeling without justification. Wikipedia has its own definition, namely "There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [5] Neither the tone nor its content exhibits a tone of advertisements, not to mention a solicitation for a business (PISA is non-profit and has no business profit objective), sales-oriented (Vegaswikian fails to show any sales so far). In other words, Vegaswikian fails to show why a well-cited page (see above, 2,050 independent source) would still need further self-promotion of any sort. Lastly, PISA is an organization anti-spam, and its opinion has been submitted to an Office. [www.ofta.gov.hk/zh/report-paper-guide/paper/consultation/20041102/org/19.pdf] Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • Not to Delete Again Vegaswikian's reasoning fails to update the latest link with more than 2000 articles showing up in google.com search. Referring to yahoo.com's site [6], Vegaswikian is welcome to enquire why yahoo.com would list PISA together with other information security organizations. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • Not to Delete Under these observations it is proposed that virtually all Vegaswikian's propositions listed here are merely hearsay [7] and much are advised laid on grounds without facts and supports, and possibly ad hominem. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25


  • Delete not speedy because n is asserted. You can't get anywhere much by counting ghits. You have to look at them, so -- Looking at them, they seem almost exclusively repetitive directory information from local chambers of commerce. NN. DGG 04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No, the Google Test isn't law, but it's a useful piece of guidance when you're dealing with something that could be notable but just really badly written. EliminatorJR Talk 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to Delete It is suggested that our wise DGG takes a closer look at the links cited. No. Not many of these links are of chambers of commerce in nature. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
  • The above covers roughly 1/4 of the unique citations. Mailcpathetsang Talk 1:31 2007/04/25
    • Mailcpathetsang refers to a list of citations that I have moved from here to the article (people should always look at an article before commenting on its deletion). Mailcpathetsang, although you can give additional reasons, repeating your opinion each time is not necessary. We get it. Gazpacho 07:09, 25 April 2007 (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.