Deletion of RevSpace

Comment: My vote is still keep, but let's continue the debate here so it is clear that it happens after the relisting. I have commented on the noticeboard, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Masters_theses_as_reliable_source_for_notability_purposes here. I argue that it is  because the thesis was supervised by Albert Benschop and the University of Amsterdam would definitely be accredited in a US context, it is listed as the 123th best university in the world. I see you updated the table with sources. I disagree with your evaluation about the The Register article. The article is primarily about the action that RevSpace took, and gives some further explanation on the actions of the criminal for context. For the Computerworld article, the same applies. To quote from WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.". Notice the ''merely''. We have multiple sources about events ''initiated by'' RevSpace. RevSpace was maybe in that article ''associated'' with the event of the attack, but the article was primarily about their initiative of assisting someone in becoming more ethical
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Three sources (from Hackaday, Vice and Stadsomroep Den Haag) have been added since, which are independent, RS and have SIGCOV. Also, the first source you cite, about the Hackermeldpunt is a initiative of RevSpace where RevSpace members are being cited, so I count that as SIGCOV. The first tree sources are definitely RS, because they both have editorial oversight. See Tweakers and NU.nl. '''Update''': the Den Haag FM reference is a 20 minutes recording about RevSpace, so it definitely qualifies for : "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" The same can be said about Hackaday which has an article primarily about RevSpace. Also, in the GNG is stated the following about SIGCOV: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is the case with the video about Zawadi, where the RevSpace part is not the main subject of the video, but it is more than a trivial mention. You state the following about NU.nl: "nu.nl doesn't appear in list of Dutch media and it appears to be a circulation of "limited interest", therefore falls short on significance.". I can present you https://www.svdj.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/nationale-nieuwsmerken-maart-2018.png this graph about the most visited news sites in The Netherlands published by the :nl:Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)