Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Hammond (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Hammond
Correcting flawed re-nom, have contacted originator, no opinion yet. brenneman (t) (c) 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Jeremy Hammond
 * Keep. This is the biography of an important individual in computer and security culture and should be kept. It is a little rough around the edges, so some of you that say delete should do some research and add to it and make it a great bio. rhoffer21 10:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Not an old-school hacker, possibly/probably NN, but did get written up in the hometown paper. linas 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verifiable, but of negligible notability.--Isotope23 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Article reads like semi-subtle personal attack. I'd like to hear his side of the story. Still, this is considered my area of expertise, plus I'm a pretty big news junkie, and I'm fairly sure I've never heard of the guy. Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable, passes the Google Test and the Professor Test. Granted, the article's quality shifts, but it's better than no article at all. - Tapo 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

'''It was deleted before. Nothing's changed. Delete it again'''

Going through the previous versions on here. The article seems to swing wildly between a self-promotion page and a personal attack page. As others have noted, the subject of the article is of negligible notability. Delete the article. '''Relisting to February 8, 2006. Insert new comments below. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  06:50, Feb. 8, 2006 '''
 * Delete it, protecting the page after deletion can solve the problem. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 11:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete He was in the news, but there is hardly any source for it and his main accomplishment seems to be making a web site. Elfguy 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Avi 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete still not notable. Maybe the 5th page deletion will be the charm ... A drian L amo ··  18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reiterate above vote and recommend page protection.--Isotope23 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and  per Isotope23. --Kinu 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've changed my mind, the article really isn't worth having if it's going to be such a huge edit war on such an obscure topic. And holy crap, Adrian Lamo is a wikipedian? - Tapo 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There is some encyclopedic info. Could this be merged somewhere? Agree with page protection unless someone makes valid argument on Deletion Review.   FloNight 13:48, 15 February 2006 (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.