Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cross (computer security)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cross (computer security)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). The individual is notable within his field, and widely published. The tag appears to be generating some confusion though, as it seems to have been a driveby "this person is not notable as an academic." But nowhere in the article does it say that Cross is an academic, so perhaps the tag was just a mistake? --El on ka 04:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject certainly should be notable - one of the original hacker generation, now (or at least very recently) apparently working in a senior computer security position at IBM as shown by this page of GNews hits. However, while almost any one of them would seem to be enough to verify his employment by IBM, none of them seem substantial enough to use for notability - all of them seem to be quoting him as an IBM spokesperson. And I'm finding it very difficult to come up with a search string that both sorts him out from the zillions of other Tom Crosses out there and produces any useful result. There almost have to be far better sources than the mostly primary ones currently in the article, but at the moment I don't know where they are or how to find them. PWilkinson (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability within his field would only be relevant if this were the encyclopedia of his field, which it is not. Being a spokesperson for IBM is not inherently notable, nor is User:PWilkinson's expectation of notability in futurity. Five years is certainly long enough to establish current notability; as it has not, it's time to put this to bed. The Editorial Voice (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think some people need to recallibrate their notability meters - there is nothing notable here, we've got a man that did a job, none of the coverage suggests this should be in an encyclopedia ---- _nonsense ferret 14:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources clearly indicate that this individual is notable in his field (early computer / internet hacking). Disavian (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The topic is obviously a mover and shaker, but without our having found third parties writing biographies of him, the argument for notability is less clear. It may be easier to note that notability is a test for whether or not we maintain the reliable material as a standalone article, and that the policy WP:ATD is applicable. The topic is closely identified with the defunct Electronic Frontiers Georgia. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2013 (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.