Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Roby (hacker)

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. --BDD (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roby (hacker) (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability at required by WP:GNG. Three of the sources offered contain only one sentence mentions of the subject. The fourth sources doesn't mention him at all. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, the accompanying photo of the subject taken by the subject but uploaded by the author of the article suggests a connection between them, that the author of the article may be the subject himself, a practice we discourage per WP:AUTO and WP:NOTHERE. Msnicki (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteAbstain. Like the case of someone trying to promote themselves using Wikipedia. Lack of mainstream, reliable sources suggests a failure of Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) at this point. If the creator requests, this can as usual be userfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm citing more sources right now, I just wanted to get the page started while I work on it further. To answer your question as to whether or not I am this person, I am not. I asked Richard if there were a photo I could use for the page since online profiles appear to be photos which are not of him. He linked me to a photo on his Facebook page and said it would be alright to use it.Please, allow me more time to compile all of the information together, I'll have everything up to code in a minute. Also, if you need me to verify identity, as in verify I am not the subject that would be fine, just let me know how I might go about doing that and I'll be more than happy to. I'm rather disappointed though that you would automatically make this assumption and jump to conclusions without even asking for verification. --InfoSecGuy (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now clarified my point with the page, and I have added a few new sources as well from Wired & Washington Post. I believe the trouble with, searching Google, by the way is that you are not searching correctly, I can find the subject perfectly fine by name or handle, it's getting through much of the "trash talk" that is cluttering results which is the issue. If you look up "Richard Roby"+Krashed on google for example, you would find much more information including news articles from wired & Academic sources across various websites within the edu namespace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoSecGuy (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wired article is indeed focused on him, and that is a reliable source. I am changing my vote to abstain. Ping me if there are any new developments or significant arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not finding any significantt coverage. As stated above, the refs given either are mostly trivial mentions or non mentions of him. Seems to have been a minor player in a single court case. noq (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:ONEEVENT seems to speak to your point: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." If there was to be an article at all, the better choice would likely be FBI Operation CyberSlam, but from Googling, I'm not convinced there are sufficient sources to establish notability for that, either. Msnicki (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - from the sources and overall article information and my own searches I am torned but I believe this article subject could very well be notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he did might be notable, but a separate bio article is not needed. An article on the attacks is probably justifiable, if the content could be merged. James^x12345 18:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor criminal with a small part in WP:ONEEVENT. Plus, I'm pretty sure WP puts less editorial rigor on their blogs section. The others are primary sources so there's a lack of WP:RS. Gm545 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2014 (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.