Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Appelbaum

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. While notability has not been firmly established (most sources are blogs, and the reliable sources are not about the subject as such - the PM is questionable), there is enough doubt to say there is no clear consensus to delete. SilkTork *YES! 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Appelbaum

edit
Jacob Appelbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. My rationale was: No grounds for notability per WP:BIO. Subject was the eighth author on the cited paper on cold-boot attacks, and there is no indication that his contribution to the project was major. No references to any other publications by him. No reliable sources given except the NY Times article (which doesn't demonstrate that he was a major contributor to the described project) and except for other coverage related to the cold-boot paper, no reliable sources with biographical information that I could find.

User:ThaddeusB, who contested the PROD, stated intent to add reliable sources, but until such a time as those sources are added, I stand by my original rationale. ParsnipChips (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — ParsnipChips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

P.S. Wikipedia has no deadline --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain, please, how any of the sources you mention indicate that the subject satisfies any of these criteria from WP:BIO?
"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
* The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
* The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
* The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."
ParsnipChips (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see now you are pretty new to Wikipedia, so you might not understand how our guidelines work. WP:N is our primary guideline to establishing notability - the other notability guidelines exist to help clarify unclear cases. To be considered notable, a subject must meet the general notability guidelines or one of specific ones. Put differently, the specific guidelines exists to "bypass" the general one for things that are inherently notable but which sources are hard to find. (Almost) anything is notable if it meets the general notability guideline - "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are a few exceptions such as WP:BLP1E and AfDs discussion where the consensus is that the subject is too trivial despite minor WP:reliable source coverage (e.g. Internet memes), however the general rule is "RS coverage=notability" and you have offered no compelling reason to ignore this general rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, I've been editing Wikipedia for four times as long as you have. This is not my usual account. I've been assuming that there are no reliable sources that actually confirm the subject's notability (rather than mentioning him as the eighth author on an academic paper), because so far, no one has added them to the article. If you, or anyone else, care to edit the article to reflect the asserted reliable-source documentation, then perhaps I'll see it differently. ParsnipChips (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there is no need to be rude - I could not have possibly known you were using an alternative account (apparently) solely for the purpose getting this article deleted. Second of all, while I do intended to edit the article such is not actually required. Articles should be judged on their potential, not current form. Wikipedia has no deadline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of those sources are big names. They all assert his notability, especially the PM and Wired stuff, and if the "major security bug" he found can be verified than that is ever more notable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be taking WP:BIO at face value, a word-for-word definition of notability. Those are specifically guidelines for helping claims of notability pass or fail. 76.115.39.183 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently restarting a crashed browser logs you out. :\ That above comment was my own, oblivious to my logged out status. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In several of the sources I mentioned above, his photography is mentioned and this one is only about his photography. Additionally, a Google search reveals that there are plenty of people talking about him being a photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That google search brings Wikipedia and its scrapes, the man's own sites, and echoes around the blogosphere. The particular page you link to is a bit more interesting but it presents no evidence for the claim that Jacob’s work has been published in newspapers around the world [...]. His work has also been published in or by [...] the BBC, Scientific American -- a claim that's surprising in view of the pleasantly pretty samples that it shows. -- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he was only a photographer he wouldn't be notable, but doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in his article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But the article says he's both a photographer and independent computer security hacker and elsewhere too it puts him forward as a photographer. Now, plenty of amateur photographers are rightly celebrated (e.g. this one) and others merit and get some attention (e.g. this one). But I'd like to see more evidence of acknowledgement of achievements before so boldly describing somebody as a photographer. How about an independent computer security hacker and a keen amateur photographer? -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I would not object to him being described as a security expert & amateur photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the article; I hope uncontroversially. - Hoary (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think 7 sources I listed above (of which the NY Times story wasn't one of them) fail to establish notability? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the PM article -- keep on this basis. The first two do not seem to be more than webzines and the Spiegel article seems more of a mention than being about him. I think the PM ranking article does it though. Per Parsnips arguments below I do not think the PM article does it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PM article says almost nothing about Appelbaum himself and is almost entirely devoted to the cold boot paper, work that was done by a team of eight people. PM's poor editorial judgment in deciding to credit Appelbaum, seemingly arbitrarily, for a collaboration in which he played a small part doesn't have to be replicated here. By the standards of WP:N, the PM article does not address the subject in detail (its focus is on a research collaboration in which the subject played a part; the article does nothing to clarify just what his contribution to this collaboration was, either). ParsnipChips (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'm not the only one who disagrees with this particular reading of the PM article, or with your assessment that they exercised poor editorial judgment and acted arbitrarily--seriously, you think they're that dumb? You claim he played a small part, but the arguments you raised above for that position were not based on anything besides the order of the names in the paper. (To paraphrase: there is no indication that his participation in the project was minor.) BTW, Parsnip, you sure put the S in SPA. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed this comment elsewhere in the discussion. As I've said in other comments, it's not a matter of order of names, but that the source didn't document Appelbaum's contribution to the project. As it is, all we can conclude from the sources is that Appelbaum was a member of a team that worked on a certain project and that he was the member of the team who decided to talk to the media. Finally, let's focus this debate on content rather than editors, please. ParsnipChips (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that information necessary for notability? We know he was involved in two papers: cold boot attacks, and MD5, both important papers. How much he did, we can't be sure of without extensive that most would agree we don't seem to have. However, sources we do have portray Mr. Appelbaum as quite the important hacker and security consultant. We know that he's well-known in the sub-culture he's involved with. Obviously he didn't just sit by and watch the others do all the work, and vice versa. But with everything else besides the papers, are those specifics necessary to determine notability? Yes, it's true, more than a few sources only mention his name without expounding upon his content and value to the team, but on that same note, we have plenty of sources that about him specifically, and knowing he was involved among other things seems to confer notability to me. Do we need the specifics? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nom mentions a paper on cold-boot attacks, and it's brought up a bit more in this discussion thus far. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be this. Would this different paper (admittedly, in which he was one of a more than a few authors) be of any use? Apparently it made some waves.[2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. (Note: a few of those "waves" are blog posts, but from large enough companies that I'd think they meet RS, or similar constaints on blogs. I could be wrong. Still, a couple are press releases as well.) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified by the assertion that being listed as a coauthor on either of these papers is grounds for notability. Out of the nine authors on the cold-boot paper, only two -- Edward Felten and Seth Schoen -- are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Both of them have other achievements that are independent and verifiable. Of the seven authors on the MD5 paper, again, only two -- Alexander Sotirov and Arjen Lenstra -- have articles. In fact, the article on another author, Benne de Weger, was deleted for non-notability. Would you really argue that all ten remaining authors should have articles devoted to them? ParsnipChips (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No where did I say that this paper closes the case. I merely brought it up as another brick in the wall. One more small note to be made, showing the many things this subject has done. I did not make my decision upon this single paper, and I don't believe anyone else has either. "Would this different paper (admittedly, in which he was one of a more than a few authors) be of any use?" If this were the only case of his presumed notability I could find, then indeed you right. In fact, I might even say you are correct right now as well. Being a co-author on a paper does not make you notable, unless there are many other sources saying you're notable. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why you would call Wired and Popular Mechanics trivial? Both articles are fairly in depth, with the focus on his actions. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the former. The Wired article says Jacob Appelbaum, who presented a flaw in Apple's File Vault encryption at the 23C3 conference in December, says he was motivated by anger. "Apple doesn't just treat security researchers poorly, they lie to their users," he asserts, revealing a depth of animosity toward the company's security policies many researchers have echoed in recent months. Does it say any more about him? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking deeper at it, you're right: it doesn't mention Mr. Appelbaum any more than that one part. However, I wouldn't call that note trivial. Wired sought to have in that article specifically about Apple's software security, which I think implies his role in that field, a place we can look for any other sources. They also mention the 25C3 Conference, which allows for a greater search radius. I looked around through google and found a good amount of things mentioning him in ways a bit more than trivial name dropping. Possible sources include: [7], [8], and [9]. From what I saw, they give some more info than what most of us have seen already, but I could be wrong. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wired isn't exactly known for their serious coverage of any academic field. I'm wondering whether anyone thinks that Wired is a reliable arbiter of who is notable in the field of computer security, or whether it's that they're of the opinion that a mere mention in a mass-market publication confers notability for the purposes of Wikipedia? ParsnipChips (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wired doesn't have to be known for its serious coverage of any academic field. And I don't think that anyone here has implied that a (singular) mere mention in a mass-market (or other) publication confers notability even as the term is dubiously used within WP. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be, but I'm wondering what people voting on this debate so far think Appelbaum is notable for. If it's computer security research, surely there ought to be citations that go beyond passing mentions in popular publications? If it's something else, then what? ParsnipChips (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now starts Jacob Appelbaum is a resident of San Francisco, California, and an independent computer security hacker. I don't suppose residing anywhere other than Mir or atop a pole confers notability, but he seems to have won a certain degree of notability as an independent computer security hacker. I shouldn't be surprised if dozens of people with more notability as this still lack articles; the obvious remedy would then be to create some of the latter. (Would you perhaps like to create some yourself?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was asking precisely because he doesn't appear to be notable as a computer security hacker, and the only evidence anyone has offered consists of brief and shallow mentions in the mass media, most of which focus on work by a large team of which he was a member, not on his own accomplishments. ParsnipChips (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entire articles written about the subject are not "brief and shallow mentions." Wikipedia doesn't decide what is important - reliable sources do. You might think that his contributions are unimportant, but that doesn't matter - the fact that "mass media" thinks he is important means Wikipedia does also. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, finally we've identified the difference of opinion here! Recall that WP:N says "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." This guideline, and others, suggest that the purpose of mass media references is to provide details to ground articles in fact. "Wired says Appelbaum is famous, therefore we should have an article about him" is not a valid argument based on WP:RS. "Wired says that Appelbaum made the following significant accomplishment, and makes his individual contribution to it clear, in a way that can be verified with other sources as well" is. But I don't see anyone making the latter argument. ParsnipChips (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought that Appelbaum's notability was academic. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider specifically the paper he wrote on MD5 or some such, then I think this applies: out of a team of eight or so, he is mentioned frequently, albeit briefly, while other names I haven't seen or seen once. Because we see him frequently mention in any source discussing the paper in any detail, that is "a way that can be verified with other sources as well", to quote ParsnipChips. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't understand this. If Alice and Bob collaborate on a project and there is no reliable source that clarifies their relative contributions to the result, and if everyone agrees that the existence of the project does not automatically confer notability on both Alice and Bob, but there are a lot of media interviews that talk about the project as a whole and mention Bob to the exclusion of Alice, does that confer notability on Bob without conferring notability on Alice? Why? If the work they did is sufficiently important, then they should both be notable. Is the criterion for notability "person has made an important contribution to their field," or is it "person has spent a lot of time talking to the media about their contributions"? ParsnipChips (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people who worked on the paper are as follows:
If that came off aggressive or insulting, I'm sorry. However, I hope this shows that all the participants are relatively notable. Each and every one has at least some reliable sources to attribute to them specifically. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to make a point about the other participants, but rather to ask whether the people arguing Keep here think that all of the other participants should also have articles. And as I pointed out upthread, the article on Benne de Weger was already deleted. If the people arguing Keep think that every one of the people in the above list should have articles, and it's just a question of someone having time to write them, then OK. But that's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is the argument that the person who talks to Wired is notable and the people who did the same work but didn't chat with a reporter aren't. And I find that very strange. ParsnipChips (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lot of those people probably could have articles, but that is entirely beside the point. No one is arguing he is automatically notable solely for being an author on that paper. If it was the only thing he ever did, you might have a point, but it isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other grounds for notability being cited. The only cite offered for his "citizen journalism" was a blog post (the spiegel.de) one -- not an RS. ParsnipChips (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I listed 6 sources that had zero to due with the cold boot stuff. Those 6 are a representative sample and hardly exhaustive. This is the last time I am going to say this: the grounds for inclusion is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources not any specific accomplishment considered in isolation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating over and over that trivial mentions in sources that are mostly not reliable for the ___domain areas they are covering are non-trivial mentions in reliable sources doesn't make them either non-trivial or reliable. ParsnipChips (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entire articles about the guy are not trivial coverage regardless of whether you think the source made a mistake in covering him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles aren't about him. They're about work he was involved in. That the source happened to attach his name to it is incidental. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Popular Mechanics thing? That's a pretty hefty title from a avery influential publication. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said upthread: "The PM article says almost nothing about Appelbaum himself and is almost entirely devoted to the cold boot paper, work that was done by a team of eight people. PM's poor editorial judgment in deciding to credit Appelbaum, seemingly arbitrarily, for a collaboration in which he played a small part doesn't have to be replicated here. By the standards of WP:N, the PM article does not address the subject in detail (its focus is on a research collaboration in which the subject played a part; the article does nothing to clarify just what his contribution to this collaboration was, either)." The question I was trying to tease out is: Are we citing the PM article to document Appelbaum's work? If so, it's the wrong citation, because it doesn't clarify his contribution (we either have to concede that all the coauthors on the paper are notable, or that authorship of this paper is not grounds for notability). Or are we citing the PM article to document that Appelbaum is famous? If so, this strikes me as an application of the "Bob is a celebrity because he's famous for being a celebrity" principle and that's something that I thought Wikipedia tried to avoid. ParsnipChips (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it (and I may be warping core policies, but I really hope that isn't the case), the AfD discussion process keeps with the idea that notability is guilty (i.e., non-notable) until proven innocent. You prodded the article, and it was contested. It was brought it with the intention to delete the article, but discuss it a bit beforehand. That being said, notability follows the opposite princible: innocent until proven guilty. By creating an article on someone, we are to assume they are notable. People like yourself (and myself) can question that notability, and try and prove the subject non-notable. Then, in the next step it AfD, where those partaking either agree with the nom or do not. In this case, we appear to be at ends. I'm of the opinion that this man is notable, and here are some sources that show he notable, because he is talked about in those sources. Yes, you're right, it would be nice if he was discussed in more detail. Some of the sources only mention him once (like most of the reports on the MD5 paper, or Wired), but others, like the PM piece, are more biographical. Not as biographical as we'd all like, but more biographical than, "Authors: ...Jacob Appelbaum..." Like yourself, I don't want Bob to be a celebrity because he's a famous celebrity; logically, it makes sense, but it adds nothing encyclopedic. However, in this case, we merely need to subsitute "celebrity" for "notable", and citing the PM article makes much more sense, I think. "Bob [Jacob] is a notable [hacker] because he is [was mentioned in mutliple RS's] for being a notable [hacker]." If that skews your point, I'm sorry, but that's how I first thought of it. So, yes: we are using the PM piece to show he is famous. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, for this at Popular Mechanics plus the totality of miscellaneous bric a brac around the web. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All due respect to ThaddeusB, WP:N is explicit. There is really one simple way to show that something is notable; it must have significant coverage in reliable sources. Multiple instances of insignificant coverage (such as passing mentions) do not satisfy, nor does significant coverage in a single source for a specific instance (which might specifically violate WP:BLP1E). The sources found thus far to establish notability fall short. -- Atamachat 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to add that I'm not conceding that the PM article counts as "significant coverage" either; that is debatable since he is only part of the team that is the subject of the article. I am just pointing out that even if one accepts the premise that the PM article alone establishes notability, which has been argued by some on this page, it still does not satisfy WP:N. The prior comment that a single article plus "bric a brac" establishes notability by Wikipedia's standards is false, that was my point. -- Atamachat 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I would say that I provided 4 sources which are certainly not trivial coverage that should be considered reliable sources. A source doesn't have to be well known to be reliable and I see no reason to assume Guerrilla New Network, Amateur Illustrator, and Spiegel Online are unreliable sources (the fourth source being Popular Mechanics, of course.) Also these are just the first sources I found, and are hardly the entirety of the coverage he as received. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the Spiegel Online article linked to was a blog. We also don't assume that sources are "reliable" unless proven "unreliable". More so the opposite. Personally I've never heard of Guerrilla News Network or Amateur Illustrator. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to know why the delete !votes are completely ignoring Appelbaum's contributions to the MD5 exploit and focusing solely on the cold boot exploit. The MD5 exploit (http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/) has gained almost as much attention as the cold boot exploit and Appelbaum is cited as the 3rd author on that paper. (The impact of the discovery is hardly trivial - for example, it caused VeriSign to remove MD5 from their RapidSSL certificates).[27]
  • Between the MD5 paper, the cold boot one, and a couple other papers Appelbaum is cited on 25 Wikipedia articles alone. And the guy is not even primarily a academic researcher. By my count, at least 40 RS articles reference his opinion (on a variety of topics) as notable security consultant.
  • Going back to the cold boot article, the deletes seem to be assuming his work on the project was unimportant because he was listed 8th. However, most articles about the subject list him and maybe one or two other if they signal anyone out. The Washington Times says his role was a leading one.[28]. As noted several times, Popular Mechanics gave him the primary credit. If you look at the sources that mention names, it is either Appelbaum or Schoen that get the most mentions, so clearly his role couldn't have been as insignificant as some claim.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"cited on 25 Wikipedia articles alone" -- we don't use Wikipedia articles to gauge notability for the purposes of other Wikipedia articles. As for the MD5 exploit, unless there are substantive reliable sources that document Appelbaum's role in the project, I can't see why that swings things either. Finally, I don't know about the other !voters, but I'm not assuming his work on the project was unimportant. I'm pointing out that there are no substantive reliable sources that show he made a substantial contribution to the project. In addition to the lack of sources, he is listed as eighth author on a paper that doesn't alphabetize its authors. But that's a secondary point. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are many source that say he had an important role, but you just dismiss them with comments like "PM's poor editorial judgment..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was asked to comment. As far as i can tell, the usual criteria for researchers do not work very well here, one way or another.The primary notability is part of two joint projects; one very widely known one, the cold boot attack --a famous piece of work, that even I as a non-specialist very much knew about, as I think does everyone else with the remotest interest in the subject, and the MD5 work, which as a non-specialist I did not know about, but which seems sufficiently notable also. The question is evaluating his role in the work. One cannot judge too much by position of authors--there are many factors. One has I think to goby the testimony of those in a position to know,and in this subject I would count not just formally published testimony in the conventional sense, but the informal ways in which people in this subject communicate. There's been a lot of discussion above, but in the end I come down to Keep for two reasons: first, I trust those who have commented on this here, and, more objectively, the fact of having been engaged in both projects is compelling. Normally, as a generalist I don't go too much by experts, but this is one subject where we do have enough experts for them to judge reliably. DGG (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious -- how do you know whether anyone who has commented on this deletion discussion is "in a position to know"? The citations that have been offered (to blog posts and so on) suggest that the people offering them are not "in a position to know". (I'm not an expert in any related subject either. Rather, I don't see sufficient reliable-source citations and I thought that was the usual criterion for keeping an article, not the opinions of whoever happens to see the deletion discussion.) ParsnipChips (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In their very first response, ThaddeusB lists a number of sources, and while some of them individually aren't of the NYT caliber, they add up, as far as I'm concerned, to notability. That these articles and interviews discuss different aspects of Applebaum's career hurts a bit--if all of them focused on that cold boot thing some here might have opined differently. To me, it means that Applebaum does a lot of different things and is recognized as such. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2009 (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/Jacob_Appelbaum&oldid=1091564741"