Talk:StankDawg: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:04, 12 October 2007

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Notability

Why does this attention whore get a page all to himself? And how has he affected the hacking scene that greatly? He seems like a new age n00b to me. ( Anonymous comment posted 19:43, September 5, 2005 by 70.67.163.34)

Those who can, do. Those who can\'t, cry \"n00b\". --Jscott 17:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stank's probably had more direct influence in the "hacking scene" than any "famous" hackers (mitnick, poulsen) ever have.

--Othtim 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of non-notable people have gotten short speaking slots at Defcon or HOPE.

WP:N -notable people have independent, notable secondary source validation. Where are his? It appears as if this person is notable primarily for having a podcast. I've never heard of "techdecisions" --- a peripheral mention on an insurance industry IT trade pub? Tqbf 02:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things that need sourcing

I'm going to strip out the following things if they aren't sourced reliably:

"Worked for various companies and large institutions"

Guest instructor for professional certification company --- which one? Cite sources.

"Reportedly found himself getting annoyed"

BR Magazine (actually, I'm going to AfD this if it's not sourced and notable)

Appearances on radio shows --- because he founded BinRev, this would be implied, so the explicit reference leaves the impression he's been on the public airwaves. Which shows?

"volunteer webcasts, presentations, or Q/A sessions to private corporations.". Cite sources.

"many television interviews for local news channels in the state of Florida,". Cite sources.

"routinely bringing thousands of downloads, and inspiring over a dozen other cyberculture and "Hacker Media" shows and podcasts.". Cite sources. Also, "thousands of downloads" is in the noise floor for Internet content.

Rename

This article should be renamed "David Blake". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF

Per WP:NPF, this person may be notable enough for a WP entry, but is clearly not generally well-known. Therefore, "editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability".

Subject's high school and siblings are not relevant to his notability, and therefore don't belong in the article.

--- tqbf 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by an extremely strict interpretation of WP:NPF yes, but I'm not sure that that's the intent of that guideline. My understanding of NPF is to avoid information like, "He has a dog, he really enjoys watching reality shows on TV, he used to doodle a lot, and that's how he got into art in the first place, he has several self-published pamphlets about how to grow tulips, etc." Some simple biographical info (parents, schools attended, workplace) is the kind of thing we're going to want in any article no matter what. I tend to look at it like an interpretation of WP:AUTO -- there are some things that even the subject of an article is welcome to change/update on their own biography: "you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth" So when it comes to those kinds of things, I see no problem with including them in a bio, even if they're not directly relevant to notability, and as long as there is no reasonable concern that the information is incorrect. --El on ka 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:31, 11 October 2007 edit Tqbf (talk \| contribs) 2,802 edits →WP:NPF: (sign --- wtf isn't this the WP default?) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:04, 12 October 2007 edit undo Elonka (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 70,958 edits →WP:NPF: - reply Next edit →
Line 51:		Line 51:

	[[User:tqbf\|<font color="black" face="courier">--- tqbf</font>]] 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)		[[User:tqbf\|<font color="black" face="courier">--- tqbf</font>]] 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
			: Well, by an extremely strict interpretation of [[WP:NPF]] yes, but I'm not sure that that's the intent of that guideline. My understanding of NPF is to avoid information like, "He has a dog, he really enjoys watching reality shows on TV, he used to doodle a lot, and that's how he got into art in the first place, he has several self-published pamphlets about how to grow tulips, etc." Some simple biographical info (parents, schools attended, workplace) is the kind of thing we're going to want in any article no matter what. I tend to look at it like an interpretation of [[WP:AUTO]] -- there are some things that even the subject of an article is welcome to change/update on their own biography: "''you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth''" So when it comes to those kinds of things, I see no problem with including them in a bio, even if they're not directly relevant to notability, ''and'' as long as there is no reasonable concern that the information is incorrect. --[[User:Elonka\|El]][[User talk:Elonka\|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka\|ka]] 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)