Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Bucko


 * 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. consensus of regular editors is clear Scott Mac (Doc) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Michal Bucko

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Non-notable IT person. Complete lack of third party reliable sources to back up his claims of notability. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything to support a claim of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The articles author has replied about the persons notability on the Talk:Michal_Bucko page 87.105.185.61 (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I hope everything is now OK. Let the quality defend itself. I believe quotations from IEEE, Microsoft, VMware, notable press, founding of notable international companies and other stated is enough to make this article valuable. I've made a huge work to collect most credible sources to prove this is valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * — Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I am new to Wiki, but support this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzejwidycki (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * — Andrzejwidycki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Definitely a "keep". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catelle135 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * — Catelle135 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep In my opinion, the person described has done extremely much notable and high-hanging fruit things, hence I have no doubt as to vote for keeping this article in Wikipedia. He disclosed over 200 software weaknesses, some of those highly critical (appeared in most important bulletins). He created a company as well as coordinated a variety of technology/engineering projects. He is a fruitful person, with ingenuine capabilities. Although, he is still alive, he has made a notable input to information community. No doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slawek Kudla **(talk contribs) 12:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * — Slawek Kudla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What 200 software weaknesses are you referring too? Could you paste links to at least 20 most notable? Creating a company is not notable, nor is coordinating random projects. What notable project are you referring too? What notable input to the information community are you referring too? 87.105.185.61 (talk)


 * — 87.105.185.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Ok. Lets imply high-quality conferences, press doesn't count. They can, in fact, talk to various people. Lets say founding ground-breaking companies doesnt count. And references from major companies in the world don't count. Still, he has built so huge in so little time. And I'm sure this is happening all the time. Please refer to eleytt or his web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertesku (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * — Albertesku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What high-quality conferences are you referring too? What ground-breaking companies are you referring too? "references from major companies" - are you referring to the vulnerability credits? As I stated in the Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, the Eleytt company itself is not notable in my opinion. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note To the authors of the four comments about: Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. So, if you are in favour of keeping the article, please state why. For example "I think this is a very good article" does not explain why do you think so, additionally, we do not discuss whether the article is written good or bad - instead, the notability of the person in question is the case here. Additionally, please remember that the moderator has the final decision in this case, and by adding "votes" not introducing anything new to the subject you do not influence the final decision. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no credible assertions of notability, no solid reliable sources. The facts that the article is an awful mess full of external links, and that this discussion is laden with s.p.a. edits, are neither of them arguments for deletion; but may indicate the size of our problem here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - Dear Orange Mike, The reasoning behind the implementation of external links was to provide much information in the area. I could exchange links into normal text if it helps my article to be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:GNG. Sources listed appear to be general at best and do not actually provide information on the subject to help establish notability.  Turgan Talk 13:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Imho, the sources do not appear general (either direct or links to notable research information from credible sources).Jarek dabr(talk) 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * — Jarek dabr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Could you explain which of the linked research is notable, and why do you think it is? 87.105.185.61 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think that building international company and extensive 3D application technology is worth mentioning here- it requires years of work, expertise and team management. Software weaknesses mentioned in the Notable Security Input section are all extremely critical (if You need to understand that further, please learn more about those; two of those affected whole IT world, one affected telecoms world). I could talk much more, but will do this if needed. In my opinion, this article is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarek dabr (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! However, I cannot agree with the 'extremely critical'. As for the telecom world, you are referring to the OpenSER buffer overflow right? In the discussion referenced in on bugtraq (1, 2) it is said that there was no proof of concept code provided, so it has not been proven whether this vulnerability is exploitable in a near-stable manner. Additionally, the OpenSER developer stated it was a 5 byte overflow (of course, I know that even 1 byte overflows can be expliotable), but it is not known whether this one is (the 5 bytes could overwrite critical data, but also the could overwrite a padding, it's an unknown here). Therefore, on what basis do you call it 'extremely critical'?
 * As for the second one - which one are you referring too? Are your referring to the Charts Control Memory Corruption Vulnerability? In that case, it didn't affect the 'whole IT world', only the Windows and IE users.
 * As for the 3D application technology, could you state what innovations or notable features do you have in mind?
 * Thanks in advance for commenting this issues :) 87.105.185.61 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I have made several improvements, placed external links outside the article based on the suggestions of the Reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article itself is a little better now, but I still lack a few things:
 * He was considered savant genius while his studies at Warsaw University of Technology" - the source of this information remains unclear
 * He has been one of best students in elementary schools, secondary school... - please note that this achievement, even if important for the person in question, is minor in an encyclopaedia scale
 * given highest scholarship from Warsaw University of Technology - what kind of scholarship was it? source missing here in my opinion; was it a standard university scholarship given to students with good results, or was some kind of other scholarship?
 * He has coordinated highly innovative projects in teleinformatics. - which projects? are the following projects the only ones he coordinated? more examples needed in my opinion
 * Together with Marcin Kolodziej, PhD in Electrical Engineering, he coordinated Brain–computer_interface project in Poland - lacking source or link to the published (were they published?) results of the project
 * He also managed aiella, 3D virtual community. - source missing of aiella's notability; is this project released? how notable is it in the scale of the world?
 * He was a co-founder of Minds.pl, one of the biggest science-related web sites in Poland - hmmm I think it would be good to add source of the 'one of the biggest' information, but that's not so important in my opinion
 * Michal is a member of EvilFingers - is EvilFingers notable? lacking source/link describing their notability
 * Also, please check Lcamtuf and try to modify the vulnerability info to the same form. Also, Slawek Kudla mentioned something about 200 vulnerabilities - maybe it would be possible to provide more notable vulnerabilities here?
 * 87.105.185.61 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I am intrigued by someone giving up going to lectures in their second year, and emerging with a Master's Degree. Bucko is indeed thanked by Microsoft (as one of a long list) for drawing their attention to something. The cnet link only reveals a post by 'the hacker' mentioning Bucko. He is credited in the US-CERT link with reporting a vulnerability. OPEN-SER link - can't find a mention. VMware thank him and others. I can't find him in the heise online ref, or in the Gazeta Prawna one . All in all, not a lot. The number of single purpose accounts does nothing to help the article - please note that your personal opinions of the subject and his work count for absolutely nothing unless backed up by reliable independent references. In fact, the larger the number of these posts, often the greater the chance of deletion. If you really want to save the article, use your efforts to find better references. Peridon (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is in the Gazeta under correct spelling 'Michał Bućko'. This may make other searches work better (or worse - don't blame me...). Peridon (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Paridon, when it comes to CNET I talked not about the "hacker post", but about the whole article; huge part of it is about Bucko's vulnerability. Cheers, Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree, Peridon. Thank You very much for advise. I will try to provide more very good references. BTW, in Gazeta Prawna he remains "Michał Bućko" (other pronounciation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to address most of the issues. Hope this improves the quality of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Removed most of the external links, placed links such as in Lcamtuf's case (external links), added references, and shortened the article to leave most useful information. I have now also added additional links from press (international). Hope now my article is very good. Sincerely Yours, Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, I think the article is better now. I think it would be advisable for the previous voters to take a look at it again. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the vulnerability links have also been described, I think I can say that the article form is good now 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank You. I hope that I menaged to make the article very good by now. Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There fails to be significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Providing quotes for news articles and minor mentions and thanks do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with the statement that my article does not support notability. By the way, would original/innovative research be appreciated (direct link)? I cannot agree about not having specified reliable sources. I would like to hear more specific information to make my article even better so that it is not deleted. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Innovative or original research is possibly of note - so long as it is independently documented. If self published only, it would come under WP:OR Peridon (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And how about lectures (i.e. http://bede-hardkorem.pl/advcrypt.pdf)? Or very original, still (as for now independently published), research draft from BCI project (http://bede-hardkorem.pl/pp_the_thesis_no1.pdf) ? And how about papers like http://hack.pl/funkcje/pliki/artykuly/118/introduction_automated_malcode_analysis_-_part_1_4.pdf ? (published on assosiated community portal) I want to make final version of this document to be top quality, so please help.Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, i still have to leave my opinion as above (delete). The key here is that independant sources/references are required that actually mention and talk about Michal in a substantial way. Not just a name on a list or a link to something he apparently worked on.  I have added many citation tags to the article.  Fixing even a few of them will go a long way.  Turgan Talk 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisional delete. As a security researcher, there's nothing out of the ordinary about his work. I don't know about the Physics olympics claim. If he'd won International Physics Olympiad or similar, he'd be notable, but that's unclear from the article. Pcap ping  21:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources seem to be a couple listings of subject in acknowledgment lists, which is not sufficient.  Perhaps related to this, it is disturbing that a large number of SPAs are voting "keep" on this article.  LotLE × talk  01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank You, Turgan, for help. This is highly appreciated. I have cleaned up the article. I know that Mr. Bucko is soon introducting two major international projects (within gaming/gambling) and Internet communities as well as given a short lecture speak on finalization of his work. Hence, it'd be great if I made this article enough good already not to make it deleted and then could improve it. BTW. Michal Bucko was running free International Mathematics Olympiad trainings but how could I find references for this? BTW2. He was a finalist of Polish olympiad in physics, but I deleted it as I could not find references. BTW, I dont suport SPA claims, but think that we should build a good article, and note delete my first work. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nearly all (if not all comments) saying "delete" refer to very old version of document. Please, verify if I had improved it significantly (with help from Turgan). I am pleased to hear negative constructive comments; still, the person in question is enough notable and I would like to ask You to help me build this article so that it is good enough. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski Kamilborkowski3 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Comment - adding references are all goof and fine, but on the issue of notability, I fail to see any change that identifies significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When it comes to reliable sources, I worked according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please, specify what else I could provide. I'd appreciate that. I found conference information, peer-review article and presentation, links to business products, advisory board of IT security organization, very reliable ackowledgements, multilangual articles about Mr Bucko's work, even found one of his lectures. I can't find things like Physics Olympiad or IMO trainings, so deleted those (however, i know it's true). I want the article to be good enough so that there is no doubt. I will also soon add very credible information about serious business projects in the field of TMT/Internet and gaming. Please, help me edit it if You consider it valuable so that its notability wasn't questioned anymore. Thank You very much for help. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (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.