Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus Kuhn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Markus Kuhn[edit]
Doesn't seem to be any more notable than the average college professor DJ Clayworth 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems more notable than the average college professor. Dionyseus 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the discussion at Talk:Markus Kuhn. Uncle G 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good discussion. Makes excellent points about witch hunts. :-) Evertype 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary. Given that it was written six months ago, it is reasonable to deduce that the claim that there's a witch hunt is wholly without foundation. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Uncle G 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good discussion. Makes excellent points about witch hunts. :-) Evertype 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the discussion at Talk:Markus Kuhn. Uncle G 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Here's an article [1]. He's well known in his field. Teke 16:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But whilst he is a producer of source material on other subjects (that is used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles), there is little biographical source material about him, that can be used as the basis for this article. The article that you link to contains exactly one sentence about Markus Kuhn himself, for example. Uncle G 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are not written in a day. Come on. And most of the biographies on the Wikipedia don't come from published biographies. Evertype
- Speed of writing has nothing to do with it. I was talking about lack of source material. Any biographical articles here on Wikipedia that don't come from sources are in contravention of our (1) Wikipedia:Verifiability and (2) Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No way. Go and look at those pages. (1) Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism,[1][2] and do not move it to the talk page. I don't see anything on his page that meets these criteria for deletion. (2) An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. I do not find anything on that page that meets these criteria. Evertype 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the whole of our policy pages. I don't see anything on his page that meets these criteria for deletion. — The criteria for deletion that are relevant here are verifiability and original research. If you do not see that an article for which no underlying source material exists is unverifiable, then you haven't yet grasped the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you do not see that an article that presents a synthesis of facts, i.e. a biography, of a person without reference to any existing synthesis (or indeed, without any sources for the facts being synthesised) is original research, then you haven't yet grasped the Wikipedia:Original research policy. Please read them again. They are fundamental to what we do here. Uncle G 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a newbie, Uncle G, and you've no credible complaint about anything in that article. I wish you no luck with your crusade. Best regards, Evertype 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've pointed out that there are no secondary sources on the subject matter. That is pretty much the most fundamental complaint that there is. That you ignore it does not make it go away. I've asked you to cite sources twice, now. If you can cite sources, you can address the complaint. But so far you have not cited any sources at all, and have repeatedly instead argued about something other than sources. Please cite sources. Citing sources is always the best argument. Uncle G 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a newbie, Uncle G, and you've no credible complaint about anything in that article. I wish you no luck with your crusade. Best regards, Evertype 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the whole of our policy pages. I don't see anything on his page that meets these criteria for deletion. — The criteria for deletion that are relevant here are verifiability and original research. If you do not see that an article for which no underlying source material exists is unverifiable, then you haven't yet grasped the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you do not see that an article that presents a synthesis of facts, i.e. a biography, of a person without reference to any existing synthesis (or indeed, without any sources for the facts being synthesised) is original research, then you haven't yet grasped the Wikipedia:Original research policy. Please read them again. They are fundamental to what we do here. Uncle G 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No way. Go and look at those pages. (1) Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism,[1][2] and do not move it to the talk page. I don't see anything on his page that meets these criteria for deletion. (2) An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. I do not find anything on that page that meets these criteria. Evertype 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed of writing has nothing to do with it. I was talking about lack of source material. Any biographical articles here on Wikipedia that don't come from sources are in contravention of our (1) Wikipedia:Verifiability and (2) Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are not written in a day. Come on. And most of the biographies on the Wikipedia don't come from published biographies. Evertype
- But whilst he is a producer of source material on other subjects (that is used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles), there is little biographical source material about him, that can be used as the basis for this article. The article that you link to contains exactly one sentence about Markus Kuhn himself, for example. Uncle G 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Markus' contributions to standards and internationalization standards are quite notable. This article should be expanded, not deleted. The proposal for deletion seems rather mean-spirited. Evertype 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what sources you think can be used to make this article verifiable and to expand it. Uncle G 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that Wikipedia covers his contributions elsewhere, in articles such as EURion constellation. As I said, he is a producer of source material on other subjects that is used as reference material in the articles on those subjects. For an article about him, however, there has to be source material about him. Uncle G 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you suggest that he was NOT (born 1971 in Munich), that he is NOT is a German computer scientist, that he is NOT currently teaching and researching at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, that he did NOT graduate from the University of Erlangen (Germany), Purdue University (Indiana, US), and the University of Cambridge (England), and that he is NOT a Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge? I am sure that similar statements are made in MOST of the biographical articles on the Wikipedia. The number of pages which link to that article shows that an article is needed and useful. Deleting it would just leave a whole lot of dead links. To what purpose? What specific information on this page do you consider particularly suspect? Evertype 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, your argument bears no relation to what I actually wrote, and does not answer what you were asked. The number of hyperlinks to this article is irrelevant. What is important here is sources. I ask again: What sources do you think can be used to verify the article as it stands, to expand the article, and (indeed!) to verify the statements that you make above? Please cite some sources of biographical information about this person.
You haveTeke has cited one that contains 1 sentence of information (which isn't even in this article, ironically), so far. Uncle G 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- What source exactly do we need to prove that Markus was born in Munich in 1971? Where is the source proving that Jimbo Wales was born in Huntsville? This move for deletion is mean-spirited and pointless, and the deletion of this article for the weak theoretical argument you make will not make the Wikipedia any better. Evertype 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We need a reliable source that states that, of course. The source for anything in Jimbo Wales should be cited by that article (and, indeed, if you read that article you will find that it cites sources and even has a citation link right next to the sentence that states where he was born). If you consider Wikipedia:Verifiability to be "weak" and "theoretical", then you have come to the wrong place. Verifiability is fundamental to Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and that was about the third link down on a google search, right below his homepage and the wiki entry. An advanced search turns up 179,000 exact matches- many are this Kuhn. Uncle G, votes are opinions and policy to provide concensus. It is not necessary to argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Teke 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made two errors in one paragraph. First: This is not a vote. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Second: Counting Google Web hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google turns up. I actually did the same Google search before you did, and came across the same article. I've read quite a few of the results turned up by Google, and have yet to find one that is a potential source for this article. As I said before, there's a lot of source material written by Markus Kuhn. It's what the Google Web search turns up, and indeed is material that is used for other articles here. But there's no source material written about Markus Kuhn, for use as reference material for this article. There simply is no source material for a verifiable encyclopaedia article to be written. You can demonstrate me to be wrong by citing sources. Please do so. Uncle G 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By vote I stated to provide opinions and policy towards concensus; which is what the Guide to deletion explains. I am not a newbie; your aggressiveness in arguing is not appreciated nor are the condescending tones you are taking. Please stop Wikilawyering, it will garner no support for your cause. Teke 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made two errors in one paragraph. First: This is not a vote. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Second: Counting Google Web hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google turns up. I actually did the same Google search before you did, and came across the same article. I've read quite a few of the results turned up by Google, and have yet to find one that is a potential source for this article. As I said before, there's a lot of source material written by Markus Kuhn. It's what the Google Web search turns up, and indeed is material that is used for other articles here. But there's no source material written about Markus Kuhn, for use as reference material for this article. There simply is no source material for a verifiable encyclopaedia article to be written. You can demonstrate me to be wrong by citing sources. Please do so. Uncle G 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What source exactly do we need to prove that Markus was born in Munich in 1971? Where is the source proving that Jimbo Wales was born in Huntsville? This move for deletion is mean-spirited and pointless, and the deletion of this article for the weak theoretical argument you make will not make the Wikipedia any better. Evertype 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, your argument bears no relation to what I actually wrote, and does not answer what you were asked. The number of hyperlinks to this article is irrelevant. What is important here is sources. I ask again: What sources do you think can be used to verify the article as it stands, to expand the article, and (indeed!) to verify the statements that you make above? Please cite some sources of biographical information about this person.
- Do you suggest that he was NOT (born 1971 in Munich), that he is NOT is a German computer scientist, that he is NOT currently teaching and researching at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, that he did NOT graduate from the University of Erlangen (Germany), Purdue University (Indiana, US), and the University of Cambridge (England), and that he is NOT a Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge? I am sure that similar statements are made in MOST of the biographical articles on the Wikipedia. The number of pages which link to that article shows that an article is needed and useful. Deleting it would just leave a whole lot of dead links. To what purpose? What specific information on this page do you consider particularly suspect? Evertype 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: notable. Please refer to Computer Security Engineering ISBN 0471389226. --Ragib 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep his work on Soft Tempest alone merits a keep. — ciphergoth 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That Markus Kuhn may deserve to have a biography written doesn't trump the requirement for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Uncle G 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above, I haven't been able to turn up any source material about the subject of this article (even though he is the author of source meterial on other subjects). A verifiable biographical encyclopaedia article about this person that is free from original research simply cannot be written. Unlike Mark Russinovich (AfD discussion), there simply isn't anything published about Markus Kuhn that isn't directly sourced from Markus Kuhn himself. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography.) The principles of Verifiability and No Original Research cannot be thrown out simply because we would like an article to be written about someone. Markus Kuhn is in the class of people who have produced citeable works but who themselves are unverifiable.
I encourage any editor who thinks that Markus Kuhn should have a biography to go and write one. Get it published as a book, in a journal, or in a magazine, and then Wikipedia can have an article on him. But sans sources, which is the case as far as I have been able to find (and no editor arguing that this article be kept has actually found and cited any sources that are about Markus Kuhn), no article can be had. Delete. Uncle G 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He may deserve an biography, yes, but so far it seems no one else has done it, and we're not to be the first to do so. Kimchi.sg 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a strange policy. Lots of people covered on Wikipedia don't have separate biographies, but are covered here because of their notable work. See eg Paul Crowley - we've assembled an article based on the verifiable information we can find. — ciphergoth 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Obviously notable, though I admit that the article doesn't make this clear. He is well known for several different achievements - indeed, I'd heard of him years ago, and given the extent of my knowledge about computer science, that's saying something. While it's true that there ought to be sources for the stuff in this article there is no need at all to wait until a published biography is written! It's completely within policy - indeed, it's basically the point of Wikipedia! - to collect and collate information from other sources. TheGrappler 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Evertype and Ciphergoth. I find Uncle G's concerns about verifiability thoroughly overstated. In cases like this, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to use the subject's own resume's, webpages, etc. to work from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per TheGrappler. I believe his notability is established by the work he has done, warranting inclusion. ViridaeTalk 00:06, 13 July 2006 (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.