Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CastleCops (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CastleCops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. It was deleted, restored, and declined for speedy deletion. Might as well have another AfD. The subsequent notoriety due to some hacking seemed to have attracted only minor coverage, and I am not sure if it is about the organization or some of its hackers; in either case I think the article still fails notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - it was a notable resource for its time in the (then) quite narrow field it was in. Similar in scope to Bleeping Computer which still exists. Shritwod (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable enough; see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Fixuture (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Washington Post, ;;ComputerWorld, and The Register articles about this site means it passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 13 January 2017 (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.