Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Flowers


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

John Flowers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

NN. Bio extensively edited by its own subject. Subject isn't notable in any of his fields (computer security, literature, or film). Secondary sources for article fall into two categories: a long newsweekly article claiming the subject is a fraud, and superficial trade press hits. What little there is to be said about the subject cannot be written NPOV and within bio guidelines. What's there now is highly misleading. Tqbf 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * keepThere are multiple published articles about him that are quite large and widely distributed. Even if he is only known for fruad it is enough. The rest of it has to be weeded out.--Dacium 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edited) rebuttal: the only WP:N-qualified source cited by the page can't be represented due to WP:BLP --- it slams the subject. Trade press is NN: it's not independent of the subject (based on press hits). As from [Uncle_G] --- Wikipedia is not a business directory.


 * This seems to be only your opinion. The article does not slam the subject. It questions his stories. The articles his method of making money. Where are the lies in it? There are none. NPOV doesn't mean only kind things.--Dacium 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm being unclear. I agree with the article; I don't dispute it. But (a) that article is the subject's PRIMARY source of notability, (b) it's a profoundly unfavorable article, (c) the subject disputes the article and its contents, which disputes are hard to resolve because of WP:BLP. 69.17.73.234 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Indeed, article doesn't even assert significance of subject. faithless   (speak)  04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * subject quite clearly passes WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are 3 very long articles dedicated just to him.--Dacium 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I only see 1 very long article from a credible independent source dedicated to him: the one calling him a liar. Cite? 69.17.73.234 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * note "search engine lowdown", the second biggest secondary source in the article, fails the WP:N general notability guideline --- it's not independent, but rather a straight interview with the subject by a webzine that is itself not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. Tqbf 05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Problematically, the subject is not a "fraud", just prone to whoppers, such as allegedly fake degrees. His startups, however, are real, and Kozoru is mildly notable even if it went nowhere. Some of that just goes with the territory, e.g. Steve Jobs's reality distortion field, except that Jobs is wildly successful and Flowers is not. If WP:BLP means it's impossible to have an article, that's one thing, but no article is a drastic solution for an WP:NPOV problem. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken re drastic measures. I considered that before I nominated the page. Kozoru no longer exists; it can count itself among thousands of tech startupts to have obtained only a first round of funding, no significant traction, a few superficial press hits, and an unfortunate demise. See this news brief: 3MM (a small amount) from a no-name fund, company liquidated pre-revenue. Is there value in trying to document this nn company, esp. in a bio page for an nn person hotly contested (and edited) by that person?Tqbf 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like just a guy to me. Media mentions of fraud are news - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MarkBul 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like a vanity-bio to me. Notorious maybe, but notable? No. --WebHamster 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - There's a lot of legit stuff in here, and I checked out the movie he's producing and it's real and has real actors in it, even if they aren't major stars. The guestion seems to be whether moderate notability/notoriety in a number of areas adds up to sufficient notability overall.  IMO it probably does in this case.  As for not 'asserting' the significance of the subject, my suspicion is that the author - who is presumably connected with the subject - thought it was obvious, and it kind of is. --Hanging Jack 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * rebut: WP:NOTFILM. The film hasn't received significant coverage. It hasn't been released. It is based on a self-published (Xlibris) novel written by the filmmaker. It is unlikely to obtain national distribution, because it is a low-budget local film with an NN cast. It is in no other way historically or academically notable. Thousands of similarly ambitious/successful film projects do not find themselves in the encyclopedia. Perhaps, if the film is the core argument for notability, a new article could be created describing it, instead of John Flowers. 204.152.235.217 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The reason to keep would be if he's considered an expert in his field, but I dont feel like that's the case from looking at the article Corpx 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not. It's easy to measure: look at Scholar or Citeseer. He has no cites, (I guess I concede that he doesn't claim to be a scholar) ... just patents and patent apps (none of his patents have been enforced; they prove only that he has hired an IP lawyer at some point).Tqbf 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment as he is a practical engineer, not an academic, neither GS or Citeseer is necessarily relevant as a test. DGG (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it's tricky in security (my field). There's no WP:SECURITYNOTABILITY, but if there was, tests would include (1) academic cites (many of us have them), (2) authorship of notable security tools or products, or (3) discovery of notable security vulnerabilities. I'll assert Flowers would fail all of these tests. (1) He's cited nowhere. (2) His security company, Hiverworld, has faded into obscurity. (3) From what I can tell, he's discovered no vulnerabilities. Agreed preemptively that he's not "just" a security person, though. Tqbf 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiverworld did not "fade into obscurity. It changed its name, brand, received considerable funding, re-organized with a different management company and currently exists as nCircle using the same core technology developed at Hiverworld and covered by the patents.--P Todd 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * rebut: (a) the relationship between Hiverworld and nCircle's success is highly debatable, (b) the "founder of nCircle" claim on this page is misleading (nCircle is a different company), (c) being the founder of a middle-tier security company doesn't confer WP:N notability; there are hundreds of these people, an ever-changing roster, all of whom derive "notability" only from non-independent secondary sources based entirely on press releases. Request, peripheral to the argument: cite a source that argues nCircle's product line, say, since 2003, is based on "core technology" from John Flowers. Central argument: the difference between John Flowers and some random founding CTO of some random foundering software company is that John Flowers seems to have lied about a bunch of stuff and got caught. What's he doing here?Tqbf 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, this article is an orphan, with problems. Maybe he is notable but this article doesnt show it, and neither does a quick search.  John Vandenberg 06:48, 7 September 2007 (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.