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. It is contrary to policy and practice to argue that because cyber security is a "most notable issue", a company that provides such services to a government is also notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED. The second "keep" is therefore discounted. Sandstein 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSIOS (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)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, citations are to coverage that is largely routine and not in reliable sources. Web searches return much the same. Rosguilltalk 06:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are no interviews and no press releases in the list of references used. Infact, I can't find many press releases the company has issued. I respect your views on awards. I did have my doubts but I concluded otherwise given those are the major awards within the industry. Globe2trotter (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
interview, interview.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on verifiability details what constitutes evidence of notability and encyclopaedic worthiness. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a quick note to say that this is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing and the creator is a sock of an already blocked editor. Maybe hold the close for a little while. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2018 (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.