Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Soghoian

:{{la|Christopher Soghoian}} ([{{fullurl:Christopher Soghoian|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Soghoian}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Soghoian is an individual notable for one event, that of the fake boarding passes. As a researcher, he fails WP:ACADEMIC which requires significant contributions to his field (computer security). Google Scholar (since I don't have ready access to Web of Knowledge) shows less than 15 citations for the most cited article, which was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Calwatch (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. His boarding pass research is mentioned in appropriate detail at Security theater#Examples and there doesn't seem to be much more of note to say about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article gives undue weight to the fake boarding pass incident, but he seems to be more generally notable as a "security researcher," discussed in media as significant as the Washington Post [http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/05/bungled_addon_updates_endanger.html?nav=rss_blog]. People who fail WP:ACADEMIC can be notable for other stuff. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is a vanity wikipedia article created and edited mainly by Christopher Soghoian himself, which would be fine except neither the academic nor media contributions are noteworthy. The one item that is noteworthy, the boarding pass incident, has been covered elsewhere by wikipedia. As noted, this is an obvious delete for failing WP:BLP1E. Taksi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

:*Comment With regard to the claim that this is an autobiography, his contribution log shows no edits to this article. —teb728 t c 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. The "strong delete" !vote by Taksi is the user's first and only edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::*Well, I think that Taksi deserves considerable credit for learning within five minutes of signing up for an account that autobiographies are called “vanity articles” here, that they are disapproved, and that the significance expected of subjects is called “notability.” It’s almost as though he/she had edited here before. —teb728 t c 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. May or may not be a vanity page but clearly falls outside of even the "more notable than average college professor" standard version of WP:ACADEMIC. Gpurcell (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell

:*Comment. The "strong delete" !vote by Gpurcell is the user's first and only edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

::*That's true. Now why don't you turn your dazzling detective abilities onto the link of anonymous IP addresses emanating from Indiana that make up the corpus of this guy's Wikipedia entry.Gpurcell (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell

• NOTE to closing admin: The subject of the article presented a article at DEFCON 2009 and exposed the practices of a forum, which is currently not very happy with him. There is a forum post that explicitly lists this AfD as a way of getting back at him. Link: [http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/942825/?start=100] --Michael Greiner 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:*That's true. He posted his Wiki page which was clearly a vanity project. The motivation of bringing up for AfD is rather irrelevent..what is important is that the page in question does not meet Wiki guidelines for academic notability. Gpurcell (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell

• Keep. Based on references in the article Soghoian meets the general notability guideline. The nomination and the “Delete” arguments above are not apt, for the coverage is for several things—not just fake boarding passes. And although he is a Ph.D. candidate, the article does not portray him as an academic. —teb728 t c 07:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the above that he has formed something of a track record in security issues, notable enough to merit named mention and quotes in high-profile news publications, e.g. Washington Post and New York Times, more than once. This would seem to handily satisfy WP:GNG. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (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.