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 Keep --Haemo 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StankDawg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Per WP:N; thousands of NN people can cite the same credentials. Article asserts notability with appeals to a podcast, calling it a "radio show". Subject has two superficial press hits in "IT Jungle" and "Technology Decisions"; neither of these are notable secondary sources (as a data point, neither pub is mentioned in the Wikipedia, unlike major tech pubs like eWeek, ZDNet, CNET, or IDG). Subject has written many articles for 2600, but lots of NN people write articles for 2600, which is a "zine". Subject had a "major" presentation at HOPE, a 2nd tier security venue, in 2004, but no major presentations since then (and one 2005 presentation at DefCon, also a 2nd tier venue). (like many NN security practitioners, he has been a recurring panelist at some 2nd tier venues and has hosted his podcast from them, which this article claims as a presentation). Note that article's primary assertion of notability is the "Binary Revolution Radio" podcast; but the talk page for Binary Revolution Radio asserts notability by association to the subject of this article! Posted a WP:N notice on the article 5 days ago, put a reason on the talk page, no response. Nobody will know who this person is 10 years from now. Let's delete the article. Tqbf 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on notability and WP:ATT grounds. Many of the article references are pretty dodgy, and the first few pages of a google search turn up mostly blogs and board hits. There are mentions of security-related presentations in reasonable sources, but nothing like the 'significant coverage' that would establish notability. I could find little to back up the article content in the refs given. EyeSerene^TALK 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of this article clearly meets WP:BIO. He has founded notable organizations within the technology scene, has written extensively in a variety of publications, has co-hosted a highly-regarded show for several years now, and is even viewed by the mainstream as an expert, by the fact that he has also appeared on television programs, from "talking head" pieces to a longer segment on the "Super Sharks" documentary. He also lectures widely on the subject of technology, and pulls in audiences of several hundred people at multiple major conferences, from HOPE to Def Con. The subject also has a substantial fanbase, and his name is well-known enough that multiple people have been working on his bio, and it's had to be pared down to the "most notable" stuff. Caveat: I have met this individual and was invited to appear on his show a few times, but we have no financial relationship of any kind. I do, however, as one of the people within this field, affirm that StankDawg is clearly notable within it. --Elonka 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebut: re "I affirm StankDawg's notability": there's no guideline that offers you the ability to transitively assign notability to your friends. We can argue the degree of notability you have in my field in a different venue (I can secondary-source myself deeper than you can, but am not arrogant enough to believe I belong in an encyclopedia). But "I affirm StankDawg is notable" is a non-argument.tqbf 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebut: Elonka Dunin, I offered arguments against the subject's notability, and your response begs the question. (1) If the subject's podcast is notable and highly regarded, source that. I've been in this field for almost 15 years, and I don't believe that it is notable. (2) An appearance on "Super Sharks" doesn't establish notability (thousands of NN people appear briefly on television); moreover, in the article, the "Super Sharks" appearance is a biographical detail, not an appeal to notability. (3) Hundreds of NN people have presented at HOPE; almost any practioner in the industry can do it. By way of precedent, we just deleted John Flowers because his (substantially more notable) DefCon appearance didn't establish notability.tqbf 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebut: (my last in response to Elonka's comment): re: "founded notable organizations": this is the problem with this article. The subject founded an eponymous "hacker group", which is then credited with several people's zine articles in 2600. The hacker group (Digital_DawgPound) then uses the subject's article as an appeal to its own notability, which then uses the hacker group to foster its own. Is there a WP term for this? As a good faith gesture, I searched ZDNet, CMP, and IDG for references to "Digital Dawg Pound" in security. I found none. I see no secondary source evidence that this group is notable, yet it anchors a series of WP bio pages for people who are probably NN.tqbf 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly object to the bad faith in your statement that I'm "assigning notability to my friends." Just because I briefly see someone at technology conferences does not mean that we have any kind of a personal relationship. And as I am, verifiably, a respected authority in certain technology and crypto-related fields,[1] I absolutely have the right to an opinion on who is or isn't notable in the tech scene. I agree with you that just because someone gives a talk at Def Con, doesn't make them notable. But by sheer breadth of contributions, StankDawg meets WP:BIO. He has significant name recognition, a notable body of work, and has founded several well-respected organizations within the tech scene. Just because you haven't heard of him, doesn't make him non-notable. --Elonka 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we agree that the subject's DefCon and HOPE presentations aren't prima facie evidence of notability. Please source reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, the "primary notability criteria". I don't see any, and I looked. You haven't cited any, yet. I apologize for the wording of my previous reply.tqbf 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominating account Tqbf (talk · contribs) has a very limited amount of activity on Wikipedia. This may be a bad-faith nom. --Elonka 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason for ad hominem, a reply I offer as a confirmation of good faith intent to see this NN page removed.tqbf 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did you become so savvy in so few edits? Did you have another account before? - Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy to answer more questions on talk pages, but for the sake of clarity here: I care passionately about the computer security field, am disappointed by its uneven coverage here, and am doing my best to clean it up. I'm a newcomer, but I believe I've read the guidelines very carefully.tqbf 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Take my comment as a compliment. Leave me a talk message if you want to explain what you think needs improving. Maybe I can help. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not subjective. This article has references, they check out, and there's obvious notability because the references support this start-class article. An article can be deleted if the references are so thin that the article can never be more than a stub. That's not the case here. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference (1): _Techno Security's Guide to Managing Risks..._, a paperback Syngress title that the subject did not write. A shout-out in a tech book isn't a notable secondary source. (2) "Click Fraud Sponsored By Google", a blog post that *does not mention the subject*. (3) "Behind the Curtain At TCG", a blog post reviewing subject's DefCon talk. (4) _Technology Decisions_... a broken link, which I tracked down to an NN tech pub targeting the insurance industry, in which the subject is peripheral to the article. (5) _Dubious Achievement..._, a press hit about a HOPE presentation in an NN tech pub. If it's helpful, I can give you analyses about typical press coverage from first tier venues (RSA and Black Hat); by way of example, my talk hit all of ZDNet, CMP, and IDG (I'm NN). tqbf 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is that what's launching your attack on StankDawg's article? He has a bio and you don't? --Elonka 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ad-hominem. I'm comfortable and confident that I'm not notable, but familiar enough with the industry and how its PR works to know that the subject of this article isn't either. This reply you just made isn't an AfD argument. Can you cite reliable independent third-party sources in which the subject of this article receives significant coverage? Notoriety among a small subculture isn't notability. A subject is notable "by dint of people writing about it".tqbf 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD seems to me to rest on two criteria (per my earlier comment): notability and verifiability. To take notability first: as an article that comes under WP:BIO, it looks like notability is being argued due to "demonstrable wide name recognition". StankDawg generates 953 ghits... but my own username generates over 850, and I'm utterly non-notable. Although ghits is imprecise as a measure, for someone whose identity is - even partially - tied to the web and the IT business, this is a very low hit count (and when one discounts the hits to StankDawg's sig in blogs and forum posts, and the various WP articles and mirrors, this drops even lower). There may well be name recognition amongst a niche community, but from what I could find this is neither "wide" or especially "demonstrable". Then we come to verifiability, which is established by evidence in reliable, independent secondary sources backing up every claim made in the article (preferably using inline citations). Again I saw almost no evidence of this; many of the sources, as tqbf has pointed out, only mention in passing the claims made... and this makes the bulk of the article unverifiable (and hence original research). This is very serious in a bio (see WP:BLP); unsourced information can be removed at will, and quite rightly unverifiable bios do not stay on WP long. EyeSerene^TALK 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional data points: StankDawg's "David Blake" isn't in the first 3 Google pages for that search, or even with that search qualified by "Security". "StankDawg" has no current Google News hits, and only 2 hits in the archives, in "IT Jungle" (argued NN per above) and "National Underwriter Life & Health". There are only 7 Technorati blog hits that even mention StankDawg, several of which are written by the subject, one of which is a Transformers movie review. There is 1 Google Scholar mention of StankDawg, in an undergrad paper on "leetspeak", but otherwise no academic mention of StankDawg. The subject's lack of name recognition in my own field prompted this AfD.--- tqbf 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With Caveats. I would like to keep the article but only under three conditions. The first being that the article's primary name be changed to David Blake or some disambiguation there of. My reason for this is that "StankDawg" is not a very encyclopedic title for an article about a person. Even if he goes by StankDawg. (if you were to read about David in a history book, would his section be titled StankDawg or David Blake?). The second, which is included due to a more serious concern is that the article needs to be trimmed to include only material that is of note (and perhaps some simple background information, e.g. where he grew up, went to school, etc). For example the entire section on "Hacking" needs to go. to be honest unless his webpage itself is of international note then I don't really care that he started it because he was upset by "politics, in-fighting, "Elitism", and lack of supportive atmosphere". That reads more like a bio on a blog than it does a like a bio on an encyclopedia. As I see it, the notable parts here, seem to be the radio show(s), and his involvement in a hacking group (DDP). If both of those are notable enough to warrent pages of their own (and im not making comments either way on that as I've not reviewed them fully) then those seem to be the most relevant parts to why he's notable. If so lets trimm the article to include just those notable parts without all the fluff. Third we need to find some sources that make mention of Mr. Blake in a noteworthy way. I don't count many in the list. it is essecial (as with everything else in an encyclopedia) that everything that we say is noteworthy about him is cited clearly and from a reliable source. --Michael Lynn 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Mike. You really think this material is keeper? I'll re-read it. But can I try to convince you that what we really want to do is merge all this into one article for Binary Revolution Radio? I went after this article because it's the center of a whole constellation of weird little articles about people in this "Binary Revolution Radio" / "Digital Dawg Pound" subculture. Frankly, it seems like noise pollution at best and misleading at worst considered in the context of the rest of the bio coverage of security here. --- A question: if you got rid of the "hacking" stuff, what would be left? --- tqbf 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that some of these claims are shaky, but if some parts are totally NN (and i completely agree that large parts of this article are pure fluff), then we can remove those parts without removing the entire article. In my experience its best to do this in phases, if in the end he really isnt NN, then little by little it will be widdled away to nothing and will be deleted eventually. If however the other side is correct, and there are notable things here (and i think there *might* be some) then they can find sources, build up the parts that actually belong here and make the encyclopedia better. But i do totally see what set you off here so lets see what we can remove to keep this article notable and verifyable. --Michael Lynn 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • After reviewing, and considering the material Mike and I both seem to believe should be stripped, I think this content should be merged with Binary Revolution Radio. There'd be at most 1-2 short grafs about this subject after edits, which would make a fine addition as a section to the BinRev article. BinRev is probably also where content from Digital_DawgPound belongs, as well as people like Tom Cross; clearly, BinRev is the notable topic that is generating controversy in this AfD, not StankDawg. If someone wants to User_talk:Tqbf me a quick helping hand, I'd be happy to do this work so we can delete this article. --- tqbf 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...and Binary Revolution Radio is notable because...? Does a merge to another article with notabiliy issues serve any purpose here? EyeSerene^TALK 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Doesn't WP:BIO declare that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Wouldn't this be covered under 2600: The Hacker Quarterly as a subject based printed magazine in which David contributed regularly and is recognized by his peers for doing so? Additionally in reference to notability based on Google search count and name recognition, I am having troubles using that as a credible method of giving notability. For example John Draper and Abe Lincoln have nearly the same search responses however it would be feasible to say that more people would consider the President of the United States far more notable than a accomplished phreak. Additionally lets take that one step down, you can bring yourself to Kevin Mitnick who not only is VERY notable in the field, even gained large conference coverage and TV coverage can only muster a simple 1 million results from Google search. Additionally the credibility of search response count and order for Google would also be in question. What I am getting at is what value of hits on google, if any, justifies notability. With regards to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in relation to his peers under the two organizations Binary Revolution and DDP. As a organization the Binary Revolution and DDP members have been published in notable magazines which in this case was mentioned to not be notable because no cross reference could be given. In this case I would recommend this issue be more of a lack of notable references vs. grounds for deletion. Additionally what grounds of notability do online publications have? What is classified as a online publication, can it be member contributed? This I think will ruffle some feathers on Wikipedia as topics of 'publication' on a website may be notable by current guidelines purely on subject matter and not value and understanding of content published. Correct me if I am wrong but is this or isn't this the reason Binary Revolution and DDP would be considered 'barely notable?' I would also like to request that user:tqbf please stop responding to the field in question in a possessive manner, one cannot own a field of study / practice. --Jeff Lockerman 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  — Zapperlink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Elonka 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2600 is a zine, and zines have different reliability implications, per WP:BLP. Worth noting also that the bar for getting published in 2600 is quite low. More importantly, "DDP" and "Binary Revolution" are not independent reliable third party sources of notability; they are small groups, both started by the subject; the former (DDP) is actually eponymous! WP already distinguishes between blogs and other independent sources. John Draper, Kevin Mitnick, and the President are clearly notable. What's the case being made for this article? I apologize if I seem possessive, and believe elonka and I have mended that fence offline. --- tqbf 18:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (also, objection your honor! StankDawg has ~950 ghits, Abe Lincoln has 1.1MM, and John Draper has ~100,000 --- one-of-these-things-is-not-like-other, and I'm embarrassed I had to go look this up) 01:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2600:_The_Hacker_Quarterly is not a "zine" based on the definition of wikipedia Zine and therefore qualifies as a "reliable source" in this case. -Bad Monk3y 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zine is not policy, and if it were, 2600 could still fall under it; it's a self-published work of minority interest. MRR, cited on that same page as the archetype of a successful zine sold in bookstores, has a broader circulation (and wider name recognition) than 2600 (note 2600's circ isn't audited, nor is the circ number on 2600:_The_Hacker_Quarterly sourced). Not that this matters; nobody is citing a 2600 story that covers the subject, only articles the subject wrote. Pizza Today (exists!) has staff writers too, but they aren't notable. Neither is this subject. --- tqbf 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was not arguing if Stankdawg is notable based on Google hits. My comment was questioning the usage of hits to determine notability, which IMO is a unreliable method of justifying anyones status (Not just Stankdawgs). However as I stick to my purpose of coming on here, is not to justify the saving or removal but to simply question the 'solid' reasonings behind them. Saying that a hits count on Google determines notability is like saying someone with a CCNA determines them qualified to handle a MBGP. Elonka and Mike had made previous comments which I was simply questioning back and would like to hear there educated input on. Additionally since I was already there I went ahead and edited the following "I'm embarased I had to go look this up)" to include correct spelling. --Zapperlink 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for fixing my typo. The arguments against this page don't hinge on ghits. The problem is, 3000+ words of debate into this AfD, there are still no reliable, independent secondary sources that affirm this subject's notability. To believe the subject is notable, you have to believe that the subject's eponymous "hacker group" is notable and that the subject's podcast is notable. --- tqbf 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it was me that brought up g-hits... ;) I have to agree with Zapperlink that they are (as I mentioned) an unreliable tool... when used uncritically and in isolation. However in this case I believe they are one indicator (amongst others) of a lack of notability, since a notable person - especially one closely associated with IT/the web - could be reasonably expected to have a rather higher profile. Taken together with the lack of suitable source material (per tqbf), notability has not really been established. EyeSerene^TALK 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I still have to re-read the explanation for groups / organizations listed to be 100% assured, I think at worse, since the big factor is that David Blake is not by the sites standards considered independently notable, that it be merged with the Binary Revolution / DDP Information as for those identities, he is not only the founder but a huge contributor, and knowing Binary Revolution from its very beginning, I can account that the numbers in which it is being recognized on a 'niche field'(Hacker Community) is greatly increasing each year and its contributors vary in levels of 'notability' (Mostly because each one cannot be identified at this moment.) --Zapperlink 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being well-known inside of a small group of people (for instance, the listeners of a niche podcast) doesn't make you notable, per WP:NOT. Can you cite a reliable, independent secondary source claiming that BinRev is notable, or that David Blake is notable? If not, we should delete this.

--- tqbf 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I would have to disagree with the idea that David's outreach is insignificant enough not to in some fashion be noted in at least conjunction with his partnering entity Binary Revolution, not specifically Binary Revolution Radio, which itself should be a subject of Binary Revolution. Binary Revolution has reached a similar growing scale as 2600 has done in the past and still continues to grow. The Binary Revolution has had successful physically printed magazines, a active website, a developing project base, and even a ongoing Podcast seems to be more than just a 'fanboy' website for the hacker subculture. Additionally Binary Revolution has extended even further to have actual meetings nationally, maybe even internationally. David Blake, founder of DDP (no notable by site standards) and Binary Revolution (potentially notable), is no longer an issue of being independently notable. While I disagree there is no just reason to commit to ongoing debate, I will commit only to agree in disagreeing. However in the end being that Binary Revolution is not what I would consider a small organization. Binary Revolution, a entity that impacts more than just a handful of people, would give a piece of mind to say that all of these 'entities' should fall under at least one page in Wikipedia. --Zapperlink (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm sure it's possible BinRev could become notable, but nobody has cited any reliable independent secondary sources to establish that it is now. --- tqbf 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What independent sources are sufficient enough under WP policy yet fall under a interest group? I have seen a few interest groups on here that I personally wouldn't consider important or significant, I find the WP entry for organizations to be fairly vague. As a side note I found a lot of interesting aspects on notability for Wikipedia, some examples are John_E._Pike whom I personally have listened to on CNN as a 'reliable source' for their debates. --Zapperlink 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey, Jeff. See WP:AFD for general information and WP:WAX for an essay on the argument you're making, which is that "the subject should stay because less notable subjects are already on the WP". Obviously, I feel that if you can show that another WP article is less notable than this one, we should AfD it as well. WP:NOT states notability's requirement clearly: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. Can you find any such source? --- tqbf 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - According to the notability guidelines a reliable source is defined as: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". In this particular application of that description, 2600:_The_Hacker_Quarterly (for whom the subject is a staff writer) seems to qualify as authoritative on the subject at hand (A hacker). He has many articles published there as well as for other peer-approved magazines (as well as some true "Zines" as you mentioned earlier). In addition, StankDawg has presented at three very well known hacker conferences two of which are notable enough for their own respective entries(DEFCON and HOPE). These are very well respected by peers in his industry ("hackers", not necessarily "security professionals") and qualify as "reliable sources" that are clearly "notable" within his industry as well even if you don't personally hold them in high regards. In summary, everything in this entry seems to be verifiable by "reliable sources" and are linked to where appropriate. Some parts of this entry may need to be cleaned up (it is a start-class entry after all), or removed/merged into other articles. Just because one person does not seem to acknowledge them, does not make them unverified, unreliable, on non-notable. The only thing that I would say needs to be deleted is the category "computer security specialist" which I would say is very fair. -Bad Monk3y 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't concede that 2600 is notable or reliable, but I don't think I have to: 2600 hasn't covered the subject, it has merely published articles on the subject's behalf. Sources that establish notability must be independent of the subject. The overwhelming majority of people who write articles for magazines aren't notable and properly aren't in WP. There are tens of thousands of those people. Take your argument to its logical conclusion, and a "staff writer" for Needlepoint Now magazine (exists!) merits inclusion; after all, he's important to needlepointers! --- tqbf 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (edit: i concede 2600 is notable in/of itself)[reply]
  • If 2600 is notable itself, and said notable publishings decides Stankdawg is notable enough to become a staff writer, wouldn't this indicate in the eyes of 'hacker culture' credible person. --Zapperlink 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not credibility. There are hundreds of NN staff writers for highly notable pubs. For instance, Marc Ambinder, Ross Douthat, and Josh Hammer at The Atlantic, one of the most famous publications in the US. --- tqbf 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Asserts and demonstrates why he is notable. • Lawrence Cohen 06:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask for rationale for the "demonstrates" claim? Even "per elonka" would be useful. --- tqbf 23:20, 22 September 2007 (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.