Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Fadia


 * 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, Bad-faith nom strongly suspected. -- §hanel  19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ankit_Fadia

 * Ankit Fadia is a self-proclaimed hacker. None of his claims have ever been verified from reliable sources Silina 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account:  Silina (talk • contribs)  has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Ankit Fadia's biography must be deleted since he is a self proclaimed hacker and none of his claims have been verified. Some of his claims have been published by various media but never the less they aren't sufficient evidence. A hacker is acknowledged as a hacker if and only if his name figures in various high-standard technology sites or technology books. On the contrary most real hackers consider Ankit Fadia as a script-kiddie. Silina 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The question here is not whether most of the other hackers in the world call him a script kiddie or something worse, but whether he passes WP:BIO. He is the most notable "hacker" in India and is accepted by the media as such. A search for "ankit fadia" gives 30000+ ghits. The article cites BBC which says the same thing. His first book "The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking" was a best-seller. A look at the history of the article sill show that this user has a strong bias against Ankit Fadia, (assuming that all the IPs belong to the same person). The first version of the article was written by a fan, but I managed to do a major cleanup of the article to what it was. This particular user has also cleaned-up a bit more removing some more unsourced facts . But lately he has started removing the citations too . - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above. Has verifiable publications, appears to meet the WP:BIO criteria The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field and The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. The fact that "some people consider him XYZ" is irrelevant (though could, if verifiable, be added to the article). Some people consider Nicholas Serota "furthers worthless careers", which alters his notability not one jot. Tonywalton | Talk 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the contents of those articles. Most of those articles refuse to acknowledge Ankit Fadia as a hacker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.176.51 (talk • contribs).
 * That's not the point. Many newspaper articles refuse to acknowledge Lutefisk as a delicious foodstuff. You are missing the point (I feel deliberately); this AfD is not about your opinion on whether or not Ankit Fadia is a hacker, a script kiddy or a hyperintellgent shade of the colour blue. It's about whether or not he meets WP:BIO. And please sign your posts by adding ~ at the end. Tonywalton | Talk 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete His work has been recognized by the media only. Not by any notable security organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.179.4 (talk • contribs).
 * I have a strong feeling that this "vote" is by the nominator. See both the history of User:Silina and . - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be Deleted - I feel Ankit Fadia should be deleted. If deletion is out of question, at least he should be removed from the category of 'Indian Hackers'. He is not acknowledged as a hacker by the "Hackers Community". There are various reasons of this. He has never submitted a bugtraq or exploit. He is not a good programmer since the world has never seen an exploit or a hack written by Ankit himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.176.51 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment - To the closing admin. The nominator, and the above 2 IPs who have voted to delete are likely the same person. See, , and . - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Aski great and Tonywalton. Irongargoyle 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, per above. And the person initiating this AfD seems to be on some sort of personal vendetta, and not reason. See this (Orkut account required). --220.225.53.35 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep —  Best-selling author. JChap2007 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Ankit Fadia is not recognised by any Notable Hacker or Security organisation, other than as a fraud. As Per the hacker how-to (a hacker document by ESR, one of the first, and well reputed hackers) there are 3 things one must do to call himself a hacker
 * Do you speak code, fluently?
 * Do you identify with the goals and values of the hacker community?
 * Has a well-established member of the hacker community ever called you a hacker?
 * Ankit Fadia cannot code, or at least, has never done so in public. The Second Question cannot be verified or not. However, Fadia does not qualify on the last count. No one has called him a hacker, but himself, and the media. ESR adds a note in the howto on people such as Ankit Fadia There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end. -- Tejas Dinkar (http://www.gja.in) [I'm sorry, I'm not a regular Wikipedia Contributor, just posting website to prove that I'm a real person :p] 59.92.133.167 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the people out here that Ankit Fadia is a self proclaimed hacker. There is no proof that he has really worked in security field. Rather he uses tools developed by other eminent hackers without giving proper credits to them, which is against the hacker ethics. He also uses the tools which damage not only the security, but also the integrity of the computer system, which is also against the hacker ethics.About his books, he just provides tips and tricks to tweak a computer which are already documented and calls them hacks. - 203.129.199.148 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC) contribution moved to chronologically-appropriate place. Was placed before deletion nomination
 * None of the above has any bearing whatsoever upon whether someone should have a Wikipedia article. Our criteria are Criteria for inclusion of biographies.  If you want to make an argument, please base it upon those criteria, and our Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I suspect bad faith nomination.-- Andeh 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the argument above that everyone *knows* about him, but think he's a fraud, is *in itself* sufficient argument to keep the article. Whether he's a fraud or not, the fact that he is known &mdash; passes. Wjhonson 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed. Compare Fake Sheikh, who is notable even though verifiably not being a genuine sheikh, in fact because he isn't. I make no claim to know whether Ankit Fadia is genuine or not, and have no idea what "script kiddy" means. Tonywalton | Talk 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - A lot of IPs are coming here to vote delete. As mentioned by a user above, a message is being spread on Orkut to delete this. I have a screenshot, but am not uploading it on wikipedia due to copyright problems. Anybody who wishes to see the shot can leave a message on my talk page. Here is the text of the message - Delete Ankit Fadia. I got this scrap from another community. Posting it here:- "The wikipedia article on Ankit Fadia has been marked for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankit_Fadia has been marked for deletion. If you want his article to be deleted. Please express your views here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankit_Fadia. Please help in the great community effort to delete him. Please provide valid reasons in the above link. Because the wikipedia admins would delete it only if the reasons are valid, not if the number of headcount is more. Why I am particularly concerned about this is because we have better hackers than Ankit Fadia in this community. If there is a biography on Ankit Fadia, then we must put up biographies in Wikipedia on some really good hackers who are present in this community. Moderator, may be I have violated some rule of the community. If so, I would request you to delete this thread. This only a request to all the members here because I thought this is a place where I can share this." - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Ankit fadia is not acting professional security persion also. Leave the pint of he becomming a hacker. First of all I would like to add that i have read his book ethical hacking. Which is just copy paste from the web sites. He has pasted even hundres of pages as virus code. His book is not increasing knowledge and the things specified in his book are very old none of them is uptodate. He has also started a course with the named CEH by Ankit Fadia. Lots of ppl have fooled by the name CEH considering CEH form EC council and doing his certification but his certification dont have value in india also leave the rest of the world. So he is just fooling the newbies. He dont have any achivements in hacking field. Just media has created fame for him. So I recommend that this artical should be deleted.
 * 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.