Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (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 merge to Information Systems Audit and Control Association. Sandstein 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

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

Delete, Articles only source is the company offering. I csd as this is a multiple recreation/advertisement article but since it was "encyclopeadic in tone" I'm taking it here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:RS coverage to meet WP:GNG … the only cited references are the subject's own website. Happy Editing! — 70.21.17.51 (talk · contribs) _{00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Dear Wikipedians: I'm trying to understand why it seems to be a focus on deleting the article related to CRISC certification from ISACA. It is not my intention to advertise it, as it needs no such advertisement in this encyclopedia (ISACA thakes care of that aspect by itself). Please keep in mind that this it is one of the four certifications created and maintained by ISACA which is a recognised organisation focused on promoting best practice in IT audit, security, risk management, and governance. I've noticed that twice the same user ("Hell in a Bucket") has nominated the article for deletion, first because of lack of notability, now because the only source is ISACA's website. As I said in the article's talk page, there are good reasons for having this article in Wikipedia. To sum up:
- 1- There are already articles on the other 3 certifications (CISA, CISM, CGEIT) offered by ISACA, and they have been considered notable enough to keep (so why not CRISC?);
- 2- In few months after it was announced, almost 10% of ISACA's membership (9000 professionals) have applied for the Grandfathering for this certification, that should give an indication of the importance given by the GRC community to this certification;
- 3- The first exam has already been taken in June 2011, so this certification is a reality and not just a proposal;
- 4- The supposed lack of coverage in references is due to this article having been created as a "start" so it has the basics covered and is a baseline to allow other editors to review it and contribute adding content;
- 5- I made clear my intention to search for additional verifiable sources to expand the article, as soon as I have more time to do so.
- 6- I created this article in good faith WP:AGF, so that needs to be taken into consideration before asking for deletion of this article. I'm not an expert editor, but always act transparently and in good faith.

I kindly request that the CRISC article is removed from the "deletion" list and reasonable time is given to the wikipedia community to improve its quality. After all, that's one of the key strengths of this encyclopedia.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I can see you're confused as to how article should be if it's in mainspace, The article as it stands and the certification as it stands lack ntbility. You use the CISA article as a reason it should be kept but look at that article compared to yours. WP:GNG requires that the product be covered by third party sources which help validate if it's a notable product or ust something being sold. As is it appears right now that it's a non notable product that's being peddled on Wikipedia. If you think you need to beef it up consider making a subuserpage like User talk:DPdH/Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control once it meets the notability guidelines then move it to mainspace. Something I've learned in the 70 or so articles I've made if the notability is in question before you publish make sure you have at least three 3rd party sources when you publish and it may help avoid csd and deletions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I was able to find online some 3rd party sources, mainly in the form of news about the progress of the Grandfathering program, and added the links to the article (which still needs some work on it). Given that already 5000 professionals are certified (more than those certified as CGEIT!), I think that notability should be no longer questioned. And same is true for article deletion. Rhather than that, I kindly ask you to help improving the article and finding additional 3rd party verifiable sources. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, or perhaps merge all of these certifications into the ISACA article. The tone is certainly acceptable, but all I am finding in news/scholar/books is announcements that the certification is available, or that individuals or businesses have been awarded it: all press releases in other words. There isn't so much information in these subpages that merger would mar the article in chief. Should the title really begin with "Certified...." rather than "Certification" or "Certificate"? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge option sounds reasonable, however given the current extension of the article I think is more tidy to keep it. As per ISACA, the title starts with "Certified...", please check original source. Bear in mind the certification has just 1 year since announced, and 1st exam was taken in June 2011. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since you give a good case as to why it is not notable yet. If it ever becomes notable enough to have its own article, then the idependent sources would support it. W Nowicki (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point where I gave a case of not notability? As I mentioned above (6th July), the fact that "... already 5000 professionals are certified..." in just 1 year, shows that this certification is important enough (at least for part of the GRC community, represented by ISACA membership) to be considered notable enought to keep the current individual article. Which in turn will give more room for expanding it. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2011 (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.