Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddy Willems (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Willems[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eddy Willems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Plus we're being used for promotion here - the main 3 contributors to this article are all WP:SPAs. Was deleted in 2011. Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I'm Guy Kindermans, the author of the re-write of this lemma. This is my first entry in Wikipedia, which probably explains my SPA. However, if possible, this will not stay the case (i.e. remain a single article). Regarding infractions on the policies, I thought I was complying with the rules, as this is not meant for promotion purposes (truly). I also have good knowledge of the sources (granted, several are in Dutch, but that's my maternal language) and their veracity (please indicate which sources are questionable. If possible, I can search for additional sources). Please advice me how I can adapt this lemma conform the policies. Regarding promotion: allow me to point out that E Willems really is one of the early pioneers regarding anti-virus/anti-malware actions in Belgium (I've followed this subject since the eighties of last century...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eddy Willems is a well-respected member of the security community and has been for many years. I would consider it appropriate to keep the article, albeit with some changes in content and presentation. I base this recommendation on his work with the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization and the European Institute for Computer Antivirus Research as well as some significant contributions to the corpus of security literature, such as a useful security book and at least two important papers on the EICAR test file. I intend to make some direct edits to the article relevant to WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG which should make the case for keeping it stronger. LiverpoolLorry (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - big concerns here So this article was created by GGGTeam (WP:SPA), then the other main contributors were G Kindermans and WikieWikie (also WP:SPAs). LiverpoolLorry made a handful of edits in 2011, then nothing until this AfD 6 years later. I am doubtful about both commenters above (or the same?) I'm calling WP:DUCK. And the G Kindermans who has commented above is presumably Guy Kindermans, senior staff writer on Willems' blog [1]. Any WP:COI needs to be clearly stated. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some misunderstanding or unintentional ambiguity here My edits to this article were made yesterday (15th August 2017), which was the first time I'd seen the article. Unless that was meant to refer to the fact that I haven't edited on Wikipedia for several years, which is probably true. At the time when I initiated and edited some articles, I felt that the security industry could be better represented in Wikipedia - I still do - but changes in my personal circumstances diverted me in other directions. The jury is still out on whether it's worth my returning to that project: I'll see what happens with this article. WP:COI: Yes, I'm acquainted with Eddy Willems. I know a great many people in the security industry: that's why I feel entitled to make a recommendation. I've made some edits that I hope make it clearer why I think he merits an entry, but the main body could certainly do with some neutral editing. I was actually planning to make some more edits there today, but perhaps I'll wait and see what further comments are made here. And no, I'm not Eddy Willems or G. Kindermans. :) LiverpoolLorry (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello & a comment regarding 'big concerns here'. Yes, G Kindermans is 'Guy Kindermans' as mentioned above. And with all due respect, I am not, repeat not a duck... I won't comment on who the initial contributors were, as I don't know them. However, let me make it quite clear at this point, very clear, I am not one of the original contributors. The edit of this lemma was my very first effort in Wikipedia! So that should be final, as this discussion point is concerned.
Regarding a conflict of interest... First the reference to 'sr staff writer' on Eddy Willems' blog. I am not, nor have I ever been a contributor to Eddy Willems' blog. The reference to 'sr staff writer' on the blog regards my job as sr staff writer at Data News (Belgium's major ICT publication) at that time. The entry on the blog simply was an announcement of a panel I moderated as a Data News editorial staff member at that year's InfoSecurity (the Belgian edition of the well known InfoSecurity event) with Eddy Willems being a panel member. Since then, Data News ended my full time employment at the publication, and at this point in time I only write articles for them occasionally as a freelance (usually on the subject of security, the subject I've covered for DN for more than 25 years).
And regarding COI, please note that the number of Belgian information security experts is quite small. Anybody active in this sector for some time knows the major players and has interacted with them one way or another. Certainly that's the case for me, as I have covered this field for many years (as mentioned). Allow me to protest in the strongest terms the insinuation regarding COI, as this would impugn my integrity as an author and journalist.
So actually, I see no reason to continue this discussion for deletion. I too propose to keep this article (obviously) as I think that any doubts about its relevance and origin can be (and have been) put to rest. Clearly, if additional edits are called for, I am perfectly willing to make them, or to have these made by people with more expertise in this matter (and/or a better knowledge of the English language).
Regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Negligible GS citations in a field in which they are usually huge. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment @G Kindermans and Liverpool Larry: per WP:COI you should not write about people you are personally acquainted with. It is considered a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. However, that is not the subject of this AfD. The question is whether or not Willems is notable enough for an article and for that we need to see independent, reliable sources that talk about him, not personal recommendations from people "in the industry". – Joe (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Guy Kindermans here, re 'Comment' above. Sir, as you will understand it is pretty much the business of a journalist to be acquainted with people, but also not more than acquainted. If this is considered to be a 'COI', it would rather disqualify me from writing in Wikipedia about many people. This was my first effort (doing a re-write as a first 'exercise', rather than a new article), but the above remarks kind of prevent me from writing 'people'-focused entries????? Regarding your remark about 'notable enough'. Are you suggesting that perhaps Eddy Willems isn't notable enough for an entry in the 'English'-language Wikipedia, but could rather be notable enough for entries in the Dutch and French versions? These are the languages spoken in Belgium - his country of origin, where also most of the references originate from. BTW, these references truly are from reputable sources (e.g. newspapers) - perhaps them being in Dutch is a problem considering their reliability? Kind regards, Guy Kindermans — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@G Kindermans: That is the policy, yes. You're the only one who can judge whether you know someone well enough that you shouldn't be writing their Wikipedia article. My personal take on it is that it's best to edit subjects you know about, but not ones that you are involved in. So for example I edit articles about my field of study (archaeology) and biographies of notable archaeologists, but never ones about research I have been involved in or archaeologists that I know. You have to use your own judgement of where the line is in your own field.
The English, Dutch, French, and other language Wikipedias, are editorially independent. It's not always the case that a subject that has an article in one version will be meet the standards of another. However, the language of the sources doesn't matter. As long as there are sources, we can keep the article. But as far as I can tell there are only a couple of sources about Willems, in reliable and independent publications, in the article, and nobody has put forward any additional ones in this AfD. If you know of other sources (in any language), listing them here would be a great help in moving this discussion forward. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re 'above remark'. @Joe Roe: Sir, Many thanks for this clarification. As I've been covering the field of information security in Belgium for many years, I certainly have met/talked to/interviewed most if not all mayor players in this field in Belgium. Of quite a few, I know somewhat more of their background as well. While maintaining good relations with them, I've also always took into account a sufficient 'granis salis' (journalistic distance) regarding them, as any journalist worth his money is required to do. Clearly, it is a matter of discussion whether this 'journalistic distance' is sufficient to consider me 'not involved'. Obviously, I'm inclined to say this is sufficient ( :-) ) but I'm kind of curious to know how other journalists handle this. Is there a way to get some background on this (to be honest, this is relevant to my continuing writing information security related entries)? Regarding additional sources, I'll certainly try and propose some. Many thanks & kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3
@Joe Roe:@G Kindermans:I perfectly understand that Wikipedia frowns upon articles written by friends, family etc. However, I'm not one of the writers of this article: basically, I added a few verifiable links that go to notability. I wouldn't expect this article to be kept purely because I vote in favor of keeping it. It would certainly be possible to add more: for instance, a link to Willems' private site in the references points to a number of video and audio clips of interviews with international media organizations that might support his claim to notability as a security evangelist better if linked to more directly. Nonetheless, there are certainly more than a 'couple' of articles in the references that seem to me to be viable. In terms of reliability and independence, I'd consider Virus Bulletin to meet both criteria (YMMV): among the articles I found there that might be considered relevant are these (I'm not necessarily suggesting that they should all be cited in the article): his review of a book by François Paget; abstract of his 2005 conference paper; review of his security conference; article; abstract of his 2010 conference paper; quoted in editorial; review of security conference. As for Guy Kinderman's question: I'm a researcher, not a journalist, but I think this extract from the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest page covers it for me: "Subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." I respect Joe Roe's position on not writing about people he knows in archaeology, but the research community specializing in malware/anti-malware issues is small enough that it's difficult to write meaningfully about related topics without reference to people you know (including those with whom you may have engaged directly or indirectly by email, on specialist forums and so on).LiverpoolLorry (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LiverpoolLorry: Thanks for providing sources, but I'm afraid publications by Willems (which all but one[2] of the links you provided appear to be) don't help us to judge whether he is notable to the wider world. Please do read through Wikipedia:Notability if you haven't already. I'm sorry if it seems like we're having you jump through hoops, but it is probably the most important of Wikipedia's many content guidelines and describes the basic threshold that all articles on Wikipedia must meet. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Thanks. I was definitely off the point there: clearly I'm out of practice at this... I see Guy has provided some more relevant links subsequently.LiverpoolLorry (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LiverpoolLorry and Joe Roe: Gentlemen, thank you for these clarifications. I have been looking for some additional sources referencing Eddy Willems (articles referencing Willems as expert, interviews, references in publications). Please find some of these below:
articles:
articles based on interviews with Willems:
References in publications:
(I rechecked all links and they are still active)
Could I have some feedback on the relevance of these sources? These are not sources 'by Willems', but publications that have called upon Willems, so clearly he was considered a worthwhile expert by them. I have tried to go for some geographic spread, so as to proof interest in his person beyond the borders of Belgium (cfr the 'notable to the wider world' remark above). As I said, please, give me some feedback on the relevance of these sources. If required, I can find some more references.
Regarding the above 'Subject-matter experts' remark: I have certainly no financial conflict of interest in this matter. For instance: I have no, nor have I ever held shares or investments in information security related companies (and so no shares in companies Willems worked/works for). Nor is any payment involved. As stated, this was a first effort, with me re-writing an existing entry rather than starting a new one (I considered this to be easier... Good grief...).
Regarding 'hoops'... I have no objection to jumping through hoops, provided I get it right ultimately. While Eddy Willems is probably not as 'notable' as e.g. Mikko Hypponen, he's certainly been around in the information security world as long as other pioneering experts (the start of his involvement in the Eighties really dates from the initial the emergence of viruses and malware as a problem), with a solid track record and notability.
Kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have twice added the template — G Kindermans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (WP:Single purpose account) to this AfD, which appears to be chock-a-block with WP:COI. The template has been twice removed by User:Joe Roe with the edit comment No need for this. Already discussed in the AfD and no evidence of sock puppetry. It is a misunderstanding of WP:Spa to think that it is associated with sock puppetry, and it is also inappropriate to remove other editors' comments from an AfD. The closer of the AfD will give due weight to the comments of all editors, and the contribution of editors should not be censored before that stage. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
re: above comment. Regarding the SPA-matter. Please note that I have already pointed out that this re-write was my first effort regarding Wikipedia. Obviously, this explains my 'few or no other edits'. I simply haven't made them yet. And with all due respect, I am waiting for the conclusion of this discussion whether to make any additional efforts. As I pointed out in my previous entry in this discussion, I thought a re-write would be 'easier'. Well, good grief... I repeat that I'm perfectly willing to jump through hoops, as I understand there are aspects to be learned/understood. However, if it truly becomes a matter of my being considered a 'SPA', please grant me some credit regarding my integrity. I mentioned I'm a journalist (i.e. consider me a subject-matter expert), and during my career as journalist I did always abide by the rules of 'keeping my distance' (cfr the granis salis remark). I see no reason why I would change this approach when contributing to Wikipedia. So yes, I'm 'apparently' a SPA, but again, how else could this be as this is my first effort????????????? Please note that I did not request a deletion of a comment. But I do question the relevance of the SPA matter in this particular case, for the reason I've repeatedly stated (first effort...). Actually, I was rather looking forward to some feedback regarding the additional sources I proposed in my previous entry in this discussion. I believe this kind of feedback would be more worthwhile for me, as it would clarify which sources are acceptable (or not, and why) in a person-related lemma. That would help me to avoid AfD problems in case of future efforts... Kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing discreditable about being a WP:Spa spa. It just records a fact and allows other editors to inform their judgements. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
re above: Hello & thnx. I was wondering about this, considering the insistence on this matter, and I thought I had given a rather obvious and logical explanation (and why it obviously should not really weigh on the decision regarding this lemma). Actually, as I stated, I'm looking forward to feedback on which sources are appropriate/needed etc and whether the new sources are helpful to reach a decision. Kind regards, Guy Kindermans 38-I)3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Kindermans (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe, I haven't removed or censored any of your comments. I removed a note you appended to another editor's comment because I do not see how it "serves a constructive purpose in the context that it is being used" (WP:SPA). G Kindermans and Liverpool Larry's motivations for editing this article and possible COIs have already been discussed at length (far too much length; this is supposed to be a discussion about the article, not its editors). There is no way the closer or any other competent editor reading this AfD could miss that discussion. Let's assume good faith and let them participate without slapping three-letter acronyms on everything they say. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand this: It is considered unacceptable to interfere with other editors' contributions in an AfD debate. If you think that an edit needs to be reverted, take it to an administrator. Do not assume such powers yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: Do you not see the irony in this statement when the edit we're talking about was you modifying another editor's comment? The idea that you need an admin to revert unconstructive changes to a talk page is ludicrous. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are dissatisfied with the matter you could take it to ANI. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Joe Roe, WP:AGF is appreciated. As regards Guy Kindermans' suggested links: a quick Google search did find more links in English from SC Magazine, The Register, CNN, the BBC etc. which I think would go to notability, but I won't add them here unless someone thinks more refs would be useful. Nor do I intend to make any more edits to the original article, certainly not while the deletion of the article is still under discussion. LiverpoolLorry (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he passes the GNG based off the newspapers which either quote or include him as a security expert, some of which aren't in English. If there is promo TNT it. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So long as the apparent SPA accounts aren't violating policies like WP:PAID (and even if they are, AFAIC) the question of whether they should be editing the article isn't really relevant to the question of whether WP should have an article about Eddy Willems. The answer to that question seems to be yes; there is enough substantive, independent, reliable coverage of him and his career in software security to meet the WP:GNG, so any digressions from that central question are, in the end, just that: digressions. Note that while I'm not fully fluent in Dutch, I am able to follow enough to confirm that the Dutch sources constitute more than passing mentions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in its current form the page does not establish notability. The references seem to be mainly from primary sources, from works he has written himself, rather than from independent and impartial peer reviews of those works. Other citations are from publicly editable websites and do not demonstrate independent media or news coverage or notability within his field. Darthamender (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I checked the links provided in the article, over here and more on the internet: most of them are from reliable and notable sources in different countries in various languages. I found English, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese and more. With Google Translate we can see that most of the publications and articles have called upon the subject, considering him as an expert. The German publisher of his book is a notable publisher mentioned in WP. The question remains whether WP should have an article about Eddy Willems. The answer to that question seems to be yes to me as well; there is enough to meet the WP:GNG. Maybe the suggested and discussed links in this section should be added to the WP article.--ClrView (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eddy_Willems_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137818550"