Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lynn

:{{la|Michael Lynn}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Lynn Stats])

:({{Find sources|Michael Lynn}})

This article is about a non-public person and its entirely about a minor event. It should either be removed or replaced with an article about the event instead. Michael Lynn (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Statement from Michael Lynn

:So full disclosure here: I am the subject of this article (Michael Lynn). I don't really have any huge problems with the content of this article, and I'm not necessarily arguing that this content be removed; but if its going to remain it really would be much better as an article about the "Ciscogate" event. If that event itself isn't notable enough for an article then surely I'm not. The problem I have with it as it is, is that there is considerably more about me than just these two days in las vegas in 2005. You wouldn't know that to read my bio here though. It has the effect (unintentionally) of skewing the perception of me, making it not objective.

:Furthermore I think this is a clear-cut example of WP:BLP1E . I meet all three of the criteria for WP:BLP1E :

::1. All the articles about me (sited here and elsewhere) all center around this one event.

::2. I am not still in the public eye, and I assure that if I have anything to do about it I won't be again.

::3. This event could hardly be considered to be "significant" (keep in mind that the example for significant given here is an attempted presidential assassination).

:I don't really mind you creating an article about the event itself. I don't even mind if you then redirect my name to that event. But by having a bio page on me that only talks about one 48 hour period of my life its making a unfair picture of me and inherently creates a non-neutral point of view.

:To close, I think the following wikipedia policy (WP:BIO1E) demonstrates that this is a clear example for deletion of this article:

{{quotation|Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage.}}

:--Michael Lynn (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or maybe merge to Cisco IOS if there is any value in doing so from a "controversy" perspective. Pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E and probably WP:NOTNEWS too. Stalwart111 08:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

::Information has already been added to that article and another which is sufficient for me. Stalwart111 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, on a strong presumption of WP:BLP1E. Michael Lynn is a pretty common name so searching for it brings up a lot of other people (most prominently, an Irish lawyer who seems to have been in some trouble with the law, himself) so, if he was notable for something else, it might be hard to find it and to make the connection. Searching for "Michael Thomas Lynn" in Gnews gives the Wikipedia article and three stories from local newspapers, none of which appears relevant. I've read all the sources and external links in the article and none of them contains anything like, "Michael Lynn, also known for X" that would hint at any other notability. Any merge of material to the IOS article should, I think, be based on an assessment of its technical significance, not from the "controversy" angle; big companies throw around lawsuits all the time. But recreate the article if he assassinates the president, OK? ;-) Dricherby (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:*Ha ha, yes. My point about the IOS merge was that the "controversy" itself might be considered a significant part of the history of the product, in which case it should be included in the article about the product. If not, then it's a moot point. I mean, I'm not advocating the creation of a "Controversy" sub-section or anything like that. Stalwart111 13:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete there already is a section on "Security and vulnerabilities" in the Cisco IOS article. Add one or two lines there from the most reliable sources, and then no need to keep this one, or even a redirect. W Nowicki (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:There already was a mention in Black Hat Briefings and I added a little to the Cisco IOS article, which might be enough. W Nowicki (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

::Excellent work - that's enough for me. Stalwart111 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - This is definitely a case of BLP1E.. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (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.