Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Orebaugh


 * 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 weak keep.  Sandstein  11:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Angela Orebaugh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG with no independent third-party coverage. Purely promotional article with added content from multiple single-purpose accounts associated with subject. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  21:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete My searching elsewhere is not turning up anything that might amount to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Checking Worldcat, her books have truly extraordinary presence in libraries; Ethereal packet sniffing in 1882, ,  Wireshark & Ethereal network protocol analyzer toolkit in 1458,   Wireshark... in 900,  the others in the hundreds.  This is not a formal guideline for notability , but I think it ought to be, for it's certainly indicative of her importance.  They are published by a major publisher: "Syngress" is the computer security imprint of  Elsevier. ;  Looking at Google Scholar, shehas two publication with over 300 citations each. .  This publication record is enough to meet PROf_GNG. One does not have to be formally a professor to qualify for that criterion.
 * I note that most of her publications, including the most widely held, are e-books. Surely it isn't as much of an indication of notability for a library to have access to an e-book as it is for them to buy and hold a physical book? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think NPROF should apply here, because her work seems more of a how-to than academic. I could only find two reviews of her work:, , which shows that it is of limited academic importance although they may be very useful (which would explain high holdings). Also, her books have been mostly coauthored with others which limits the applicability to her personal notability. Altogether, I don't think that she makes it. buidhe 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Although WP:NPROF is relevant, I don't think her citations are sufficient in this high-citation field to make C1 (particularly as an assistant prof), and I also don't see any of the other criteria. But I found a 3rd review of one of her books -- isn't that a weak pass of WP:NAUTHOR?  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The books are not academic books, notability through them is not academic notability, and I think she does not pass our academic notability standards yet. There are two reviews linked above (the third link is not a review, just an entry in a database of publications), both of Intrusion Prevention and Active Response, and I found two more and linked them all in the article, together with an author interview for her Snort Cookbook and a review of unclear reliability (it appears to be on a blog) of a group of books including her Ethereal Packet Sniffing. If we only had reviews for the one book, I would think it wouldn't be enough, even with four of them, but the sources for the other two books push this over the threshold for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the !vote just above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep all the arguments I would make have already been made above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as others have said, weak keep more as an author than an academic. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2020 (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.