Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Thieme

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. Following a rewrite by Elonka, all opinions are to keep the article, so I must assume that the earlier opinions are mostly superseded. (This was initially closed as "no consensus", and then changed to "keep" after a request on my talk page.) Sandstein 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thieme

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

The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG, furthermore the paucity of sources associated with this individual suggest that nothing in this article would survive a strict reading of WP:BLP. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article at the time of this nomination was in a very different state[1] than it is now. As of 12 December it has been completely rewritten, and many new sources have been added.[2] --El on ka 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely a WP:VANITY page. jps (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The article, in its current form, is not especially good, consisting of little more than a history of Thieme's past speaking engagements. But anyone who catches a video of his presentation at DEFCON 19 (as I did) will certainly wonder who this person is, and will search for more information. This article is at least a start. It does contain some useful biographical material. None of it seems at all controversial, even if it isn't well sourced. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. We really need sources. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've heard him speak at technology conferences, and he's definitely influential, and notable within his field. He lectures in a wide variety of venues, is published, and more importantly, is cited in multiple sources.[3] The Wikipedia article is definitely in need of cleanup and better sourcing, but that's not what AfD is for. On a quick Google search, it's clear that the sources are available though.[4][5][6] --El on ka 22:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced your second cite is a reliable source and your third one isn't a source at all, it's just a Google search. But your first citation to the newspaper article is helpful. If you've got a second source as good as that one, satisfying the requirement for multiple sources, that would cause me to change my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, how about this one?[7] There also appear to be some other (third-party) sources listed at his website. I haven't reviewed them in detail, but here's a link.[8] His bio (granted, a primary source, but much better written than the Wikipedia article) also does help to imply that there's a case for notability here, and refers to a variety of other third-party sources.[9] --El on ka 14:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not as good. The interviews simply don't count. They're all primary. The first one, the newspaper article on the religion page, is helpful but it's just reporting local news, which we don't usually accept for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking apples and oranges a bit. One question is whether the subject is notable. The other question is whether there exists sufficient sourced information to write about the subject. Interviews are primary sources for the information about the subject, true, but the interview as a whole is a secondary source, which counts towards notability. See WP:ALLPRIMARY. For example, if someone were interviewed multiple times on NPR or CNN, that would count towards notability. The statements by the subject would be primary source, but the statements by the interviewer are secondary source. The interviewee is not self-promoting themselves by being interviewed (unless of course they're interviewing themselves). For example, here's another source:[10] It's an interview, yes, but the statements by the interviewer at the top are secondary source. --El on ka 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The only concern at AfD is notability. Everything else is a content issue for the article talk page. The essence of notability is that other people not connected with the subject take note of it and publish their own thoughts about it in reliable independent sources, sources with reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. You simply make yourself notable just by your own acts. It wouldn't matter if the subject appeared six times a day on both networks for a year. Unless and until someone takes note, it just doesn't count. Underlying this is the simple observation that if a subject really is notable, e.g., because they're always on TV, sooner or later those sources will appear and then we can have an article on that topic. Msnicki (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Well even though WP:NOTCLEANUP applies, I guess I'll have to re-write the article to prove that yes, the subject is notable. I'm working on expansion now, will post a comment here when I'm done. --El on ka 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely marginal notability; two local newspaper stories and a resume-like list of speaking engagements. Maybe he will someday, but he does not yet meet criteria for WP:AUTHOR. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've overhauled the article, rewriting it quite a bit, expanding the lead, and adding a variety of sources. There's definitely more that can be done, but I think the article makes a much better case now for the notability of the subject. --El on ka 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some of the sources are of a promotional nature (interviews, speaking announcements) but some are independent and reliable. -- GreenC 08:46, 15 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the sources are marginal, but there are enough to qualify for WP:GNG, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles in the Milwaukee Sentinel and USA Today are in my view independent and substantial enough to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are enough legitimate sources to cover GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 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.