Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC3 (certification)

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IC3 (certification) (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)

Fails WP:GNG, the only source is a catalog listing type thing. Other online sources are of the same ilk: study guides, courses and test centers but nothing establishing notability. The book New Perspectives on Computer Concepts mentions it very much in passing [1]. Brianhe (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect this is a taken-for-granted, low-priority subject among techie-type people (i.e., lots of Wikipedians). But it seems to be a primary and important program for people struggling to break into entry-level jobs. (Certiport also offers certifications in basic office software like Microsoft Office.) Probably the reason so many catalog entries come up in a Google search is that training for the certificate is widespread. Sifting through them, though, there are some pretty good sources out there that could help build a solid article. The book Resources for Student Assessment discusses how it was developed and some of its history (at least up to 2006). And several news sources talk about IC3:

1. It's never too late to go back to school
2. Building Foundational Digital Skills in a Global Economy
3. Incorporating IC3 Into Nigerian Education System
4. Together Again: Community Colleges and Industry
5. Does the IC3 Certification Make an Administrative Assistant More Valuable?

— Gorthian (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either zero or one of those sources is sufficiently independent and in-depth to help to establish notability.

1. Houston Chronicle - mentions IC3 once in passing: "a valuable IC3 certification"
2. This Day - virtually all IC3 content was quotes from Certiport Vice-President in charge of sales for Middle East and Africa, Jan Day
3. PM News Nigeria - at first blush looks reasonable but at least the following passages are copied from Certiport materials, such as "IC3 reflects the foundational skills needed to excel in virtually all career fields and academic pursuits requiring computer proficiency" from [2] and "The Global Digital Literacy Council has committed years of hard work and dedication to design, create and define the new IC3 Standards" from [3]
4. Ed Tech Magazine - mentions IC3 once in passing: "Students who complete the course are prepared to take the ­national IC3 certification exam."
5. Houston Chronicle - content is provided by (paid for by?) Demand Media a highly questionable source best known for placing SEO content

And about the book Resources for Student Assessment, the cover says "Development of this publication was underwritten by Certiport". So, no joy there as far as establishing notability either.

The problems with the sources provided, plus the non-persuasive argument "it seems important", a listed argument to avoid in deletion discussions, make me stay with my original recommendation to delete. – Brianhe (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2016 (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.