Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Security Forum (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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and United Kingdom. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are plenty of mentions in Gscholar [1] or [2] second one seems to be about the ORG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that the author for the second reference works for the ISF, which would make it not independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all WP:RS. The UK report identifies the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice for Information Security as “widely used” and “covering the complete spectrum of information security arrangements.” Together these 3 sources provide independent coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since !voting, I’ve added a new WP:RS from Carnegie Mellon, copyedited for tone, and cleaned up promotional/unsourced content. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I evaluated every source in the article and in the discussion, and we do not have a WP:GNG pass, much less a WP:NORG pass. See table below:

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I started looking into ISF, I hadn’t expected it to hold up quite so well internationally, but it appears to stand alongside some of the most widely recognized frameworks. I understand why the UK government report might have looked like a passing mention at first glance, but on closer review, it is more substantial. The 2013 BIS report compares 9 major cybersecurity standards including ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, and Germany’s BSI and gives ISF 2 full pages of favourable and independent analysis (pp. 95–96), with strong marks in the comparison matrix on p. 20. Combined with the Carnegie Mellon SEI source, which is already accepted as a reliable reference, I believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Infosecurity Magazine and Security Magazine provide some lighter additional support. I’ve also trimmed promotional content that was a very valid concern earlier. HerBauhaus (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as a mention in a single line each in data matrix tables on pages 20, 51, 65 and 83. Those are definitionally trivial. It gets a full-page mention on page 95, but the material on that page is entirely quotes from ISF publications and thus not independent WP:SIGCOV. Finally, GNG is not the applicable guideline. WP:NORG is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss Dclemens1971's comprehensive source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I appreciate the structured source assessment, but I interpret the 2013 BIS report differently. It includes a benchmarking study conducted by PwC for the UK government, comparing the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice to eight other major cybersecurity frameworks. These include ISO/IEC 27001 (international), PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry, US), Germany’s BSI IT-Grundschutz, and the Australian Government Information Security Manual. According to the matrix on page 20, the ISF framework received the highest scores across five security criteria. Pages 95 – 96 explain the rationale for these results in detail, based on a PwC-led gap analysis. This level of coverage is well beyond a trivial mention and qualifies as independent benchmarking.

A 2006 report from Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute also provides an overview of ISF’s structure and security practices, adding further independent coverage. Infosecurity Magazine, a long-standing publication in the cybersecurity sector, discusses ISF’s alignment with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. These sources together offer substantial, independent, and reliable coverage that meets both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 29 April 2025 (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.