Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Deception
In today's world, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Deception is a topic that is becoming more and more relevant. Whether in the personal, professional or social sphere, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Deception is present in one way or another in people's daily lives. As technology advances and society evolves, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Deception becomes a point of interest to better understand the world around us. In this article we will explore different aspects related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Deception, analyzing its impact in various areas and offering a broader perspective on this topic that is so recurrent today.
- 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. ✗plicit 23:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Reverse Deception (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)
All sources are either press releases, user generated, or non-RS blogs.
In a search, I found non-sigcov citations, one review too short to count for notability that summarizes the work (a lot shorter than a Library Journal or Publishers Weekly review, for instance), and a one paragraph mention in a conference proceeding. According to that source, this was released in a second edition under a different title as Hacking Back: Offensive Cyber Counterintelligence, for which I also found no reviews. I do not think this is enough to pass WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Technology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't have notability. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: The review by IEEE Computer Society looks to be OK offhand, but that's just one review - we'd need about 3-4 for me to really be comfortable with this being a keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I was going to mention it but wasn't sure that was an official review from them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- It was published as part of their newsletter Cipher so I'd consider it to be official. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I was going to mention it but wasn't sure that was an official review from them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not have much of a coverage online. The reviews mentioned here seem to insignificant for the article to continue on in the mainspace. Kvinnen (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- 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.