Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne)


 * 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 delete. Does not contain any substantial reliable sources. Nakon 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious notability. Sources are all self-published, affiliated, or otherwise user generated, per WP:RS. I don't doubt the person exists and has written code, but we need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned the need for source code provided by Greythorne, there are now references to code he wrote. (You stated that maybe he may have written code, that looked like a request.)

Many linked references used as valid ones on the Fravia wiki also apply to Greythorne. He is mentioned in Fravia's writings often as gthorne in the 1990s and other sites. This should count for him as well. The 2600 article from 1998 listed in references called "Clampdown" should count as a book reference. The references to him on the web show a span of about 20 years or more in many places all over the net. The sites are not possibly affiliated other than that they are about the same topics - reverse engineering and cracking, which is why he is famous in those circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldwyn (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I never mentioned a need for source code. Secondly, it doesn't matter how many times his partners or friends mention him, nor how much code he wrote: Please see WP:Notability for an overview on notability. The emphasis is on reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject itself. User-generated sources like forums or chat-discussions are not reliable sources. Self-published sources or affiliated sources are not independent, and the ones here are of dubious reliability. Primary sources are to be used sparingly, and cannot be used to establish notability. Notability is not inherited by being merely being associated with a notable subject. Furthermore, we are assuming that this person, albeit operating under a pseudonym, is a real, living person, and thus the article must especially be in compliance with Biographies of living persons policy, which sets the bar even higher to avoid defamatory, incorrect, or otherwise poorly-sourced information that can have potentially serious real-world consequences, and third party self-published sources cannot be used to verify BLP information per WP:BLPSPS (otherwise anyone could make a Geocities webpage that states Greythorne is the greatest human of all time, a convicted felon, a Romanian mud-wrestler...). So lets review the links in "References": : self-published by Fravia. : self-published by anonymous, affiliated source. : forum posts. : Greythorne's Privacy Nexus: inherently non-independent. : forum posts.  and : more Fravia self-pubs., all that can be verified from the source is Greythorne wrote a letter called "Clampdown" to $2600 Magazine, which would be a primary, affiliated source even it were a letter to the New York Times. : translating a Greythorne tutorial into Spanish doesn't make it any less primary. : Greythorne primary source.  and : um, how are these self-published pages even directly relevant to Greythorne? : Greythorne primary source. : fuente primaria de Greythorne (si!)  :More primary source code by Greythorne. In short, on WIkipedia we don't care how many times a person's name appears on the internet, nor what their friends, colleagues, or moms think of them. We care about demonstrable significance to the world at large. If this person is notable, find a handful of reliable, non-afifliated sources with a reputation for fact-checking and integrity that clearly discusses Greythorne's significance. For all that is verifiable from the article, Greythorne is noteworthy only to Greytorne, Fravia, and a handful of hackers.  --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an attempt to find proof of fame and contributions based on what you are asking for. Nothing more.


 * You asked how Greythorne was the original published of the translated-to-spanish version - Checking the link, it states they are 'Greythorne's Tutorials' translated - Other than the fact that I remember seeing them online in the past, you had to click the link to see that. I am trying to find more data for you, I hope that his organization (HCU) being written about in books (O'Reilly as mentioned for one) and being a topic of International Internet Security Conferences such as RevCon'06 (and '05) and others [see fravia's wiki for more] is enough. I and aparrently this caldwyn person are looking for data for you to satisfy what you are asking. Not sure how much is needed but maybe more people will try to help.


 * The sources (woodmann and other Fravia page mirrors) etc... are reliable, being that they are HOW the data was published (online) -- More importantly, they were the actual source used in the presentation at RevCon'06 by Fravia himself. Please stop disregarding real public sources. See the video proof here: https://archive.org/movies/thumbnails.php?identifier=Fravia_Reversing_our_searching_habits_Power_searching_without_google -- every 'one minute' frame of the presentation is shown - pictures of the site itself, and the source is very NOT fake. It is publicized well as the real source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears you are unfamiliar with Fravia and HCU, and his sources are international (see his site for how he published info) and WHY Greythorne is one of the professors he talked about, as well as his partner, and put as a professor of HCU. I think you have made up your mind, but the proof is there. More proof of the online organization HCU added in the form of an O'Reilly book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I never argued the sources aren't real, I am arguing they are inherently affiliated, unreliable (in terms of Wikipedia standards, again see WP:RS), and/or primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Excessive or exclusive use of these three types of sources impede Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. The O'Reilly book you mentioned is the first reference bearing a hint of a reliable, independent source, and assuming it actually discusses Greythorne (chapter or page numbers should be included to aid verification), may be evidence that this subject possibly meets notability guidelines (again, see WP:N, WP:BIO, and every blue link in my previous comments). I hold no ill-will towards the subject, and freely admit I am unfamiliar with him,  as I am with most people, even those that have Wikipedia articles. My own opinions of the subject, same as yours, are irrelevant: we are dealing with policy here. Simply present more third-party sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, and all question will fade away. P.S. In any discussion, please post replies below the last comment, to maintain chronological flow. We read from top to bottom, not bottom-up. Also it is helpful to indent comments with one or more colons  to nest responses under their respective paragraph. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have also shown you the accurate resource (the actual source, complete with video/photo proof) that shows that it is the real source for international conferences used in their conferences - that shows Greythorne when you actually read the source it shows. I would think that first hand by video would count... Not sure why that wouldn't honestly. I really hope that you consider that. Fravia being a similar famous person in the field stated on those documents how Greythorne is his brother and partner in this. Why is an internationally publicized conference material not valid but a book about it may be? I am really having trouble understanding your logic. I have even shown you proof that ORC is real, Fravia is real, and they mention him in partnership. Please consider it. Thanks for at least reading our postings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What I am hoping, is that by finding all of Greythorne's collected works on the reverse engineering subject, which is NOT easy since he no longer has a web archive, that his name won't be lost in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That, the publicized woodmann site resource, and the article in the book about ORC's lessons being required reading. What you don't seem to understand is I am finding those lessons, And Greythorne's name is all over them. Why do you think I have gone through all this trouble to show validation of the sources? I really hope you understand why all of this is important to me. I simply can't find most of these famous article without him splashed all over them. Doing a google search for "gthorne orc hcu" I found over 4000 entries. Not what you would get for Mariah Carey, but not everyone on wikipedia is even that 'found.' Even a decade or so late. That is why. I wish I had found this stuff a decade ago, before his main archive sites closed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How many of the 4000 hits are reliable sources? I have no doubt whatsoever that Fravia, Greythorne, ORC, and HCU exist, and Fravia appears independently notable based on his article. However, verifiable existence does not equal notability, and notability is not inherited from being associated with notable entities. Barack Obama has said many nice things about his daughters, and they have even been covered in reliable press, but Malia Obama, for instance, still doesn't merit her own article as all press coverage is due to her relation to the President of the United States. Similarly, should it be found that Greythorne is not sufficiently notable on his own, appropriately-sourced information on him could plausibly be incorporated into Fravia, Old Red Cracker, or possibly even an +HCU article, i.e. a subject that is independently notable (significantly covered in multiple, third-party reliable sources). I hope you see how arguments like "his partner Fravia and some anonymous forum posts say he's really important", even if verifiable, do not come close to satisfying the General Notability Guideline, which is what this discussion hinges on. Some of the sources you've included so far might be appropriate to verify certain passages, but all the primary sources or self-published sources in the world don't count towards establishing independent notability. As an analogy, say my mother wins an Academy Award, and in her acceptance speech says "I owe all my success to my dear son Animalparty, the smartest guy I know". I still wouldn't merit an article, even if someone found every test I took, every essay I ever wrote, and every post on my Livejournal or Flickr as "proof" I am a notable person; and in the absence of reliable, independent sources I would be first in line to argue its deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I am perfectly willing to accept that Greythorne was influential to an unspecified number of people, but if no significant, reliable, third-party coverage can be found, so be it! Wikipedia is not the place to construct an "oral history" composed entirely of primary sources and raw data (No original research). Furthermore it would be improper synthesis to state in essence: "HCU is notable. Greythorne was part of HCU. Therefore Greythorne is Notable." We as editors cannot make such inferences unless reliable secondary sources explicitly say so. If you want to firmly establish Greythorne's importance, or make sure his name isnt lost to history, do some real investigative work and get it published in a reputable peer-reviewed outlet first (where presumably experts would evaluate for accuracy, cherry-picking, undue promotion, and balance). Such a piece would thus constitute a secondary source, and would be suitable for a BLP reference. Note: a simple Google search produces a (non-RS) forum post in which Greythorne (apparently) reveals his real life identity, thus ever more the importance of adhering to BLP policy which includes erring on the presumption of privacy for the subject. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note for admins or other participants, there are additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne), however any subsequent discussion should probably occur on this page, not the Talk page. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way, way too promotional.  Also, there seems to be very little available coverage about this person.  He was apparently skilled and influential, but without some kind of coverage in reliable sources, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  A hacking/cracking wiki on Wikia would probably be a better place.  It's not easy for hackers to get mainstream coverage in the press, but it does happen.  Could also be redirected to Old Red Cracker, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Perhaps National Names 2000 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. Do you have a reason for keeping? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BIO. Reams of internet cruft cited as sources, but nothing recognizable as a reliable source.  Sandstein   20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.