Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ridpath


 * 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. On the advice of CU, the IPs that participated were given no weight and this was treated as a unanimous delete closure. Mkdw talk 04:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mike Ridpath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the claims made, this person is not notable by our standards. I had cleaned this up some but a few editors re-added stuff without the benefit of knowing what WP:RS says. "References" added include such videos (?) as this ("All The Gold You Can Eat") and self-published books like this one (which doesn't even mention our subject, according to the "search inside" function). This person is so not-notable, and the article in previous versions (and its current version) so obviously unencyclopedic, that words really fail me--the article doesn't contain a single reference to a reliable source, and Google produces nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't find reliable sources, and the sources in the article mainly consist of name checks. In fact, I failed to find his name in some. LaMona (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Not sure if any of the above users are in information security but within the subculture of cypherpunks and hackers Ridpath is very well known and thats why the article was created in the first place. As he's listed as one of the top Social Engineers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) for years and was removed due to not having a wiki so we tried to pull together what we could find on the internet about him and he's mentioned in multiple books and videos. The books you search when looking at the article are citing the products he create called Liquid Chi Jablestech   talk 8:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) *Keep Both the documentary and the specific health book mentioned was trying to show he's not just a computer security lecturer, expert and social engineer. I know nothing of computer security communities he is or not part of but I do know that he's the keynote speaker for multiple Alchemy Conferences throughout the world and that he's well known within the esoteric communities i.e. rosicrucian and gnostic. Trying to locate source as I believe he's a bishop. From what I found online he's lecturer and member of multiple high IQ societies and given multiple information security presentations. Wikignome420  talk  9:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches found nothing better and this article is still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister   talk  19:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets the minimum requirements. It does have news articles, videos, and books citations. Did Google search "Mike Ridpath Social Engineering" however I don't think he's notable in anything else other then computer security and the article owner should clean this up. 24.22.134.18 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed Michael is noteable. Owner needs to rewrite it according to guidelines. 63.147.70.46 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is this user's only edit on WP. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

54.240.196.185 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC) *Comment I believe the article would be limiting to just one facet of who he is if we focused on the security expert and social engineer. He’s published in a number of journals and articles regarding leadership, business process, and manufacturing - for example, this ("YourWorkplace"). To more esoteric type things such as reviewer of the ("Alchemy Journal"). He's created a bunch of different things we can find online and was trying to reference in the previous article such as his DVD series, Alchemy stuff, businesses etc. Also found multiple reference to High IQ involvement as an example and he’s an administrator for a scholar institute for High IQ Societies here. Wikignome420 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I've watched Michael at Defcon & Blackhat talks and agreed there are plenty of wikis of people less notable the only issue is we don't have his handle posted. I know that he wouldn't be happy if that was posted publicly. I think this also should be reworded and correct sources used. Focus on security expert and social engineer not everything else. 54.240.196.185 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think at this point we need an analysis of the sources. Most of the "keep"s above are not in terms of policy, so it isn't clear what we are talking about. So, sources: 1) web site of a documentary (very hard to navigate), site does not mention him 2) a self-published book (Authorhouse), not a RS 3) a self-published book; search-inside for "ridpath" got zero 4) a presentation by him, not a RS 5) book, not sure about publisher, but Ridpath mentioned once, seems to get one paragraph 6) ?? a web site, no mention of him 7) Published book; zero hits for ridpath 8) An interview; RS but does not confer notability 9) his name in a conference program. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree he is noteable as well. Anyone that is part of information security would agree. However the sources are hard to understand. We need to use better references. I recommend this be rewritten. The books mentioned where no hits for Ridpath when searching Liquid Chi his product it came up. However this isn't going to help his computer security references. As most of them are directly his talks or press releases or youtubes it seems. The original author should locate better references. 174.24.250.179 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep After analysis of the sources this a keep. Lets close the discussion as a speedy keep and focus on sources that just mention Ridpath unless trying to prove another point within the article itself. Agreed of notability in social engineering outside of that not enough notable to mention. 96.93.105.243 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I can reword the article and conform based on above guidance. I won't have really any time this week until Sunday to take a look at it. Johntame (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC) There's a bunch of trade journals we can add such as Informatica Economica journal http://revistaie.ase.ro/content/70/01%20-%20Greavu,%20Serban.pdf. The issue is the article will take some time to gather all the references from Mike Ridpath "Social Engineering" and his other accomplishments. Johntame (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Week Keep If your the article owner Johntame please do so and ensure to follow the guidelines suggested. I reviewed the above references and agree this should be kept but again as suggested focus only as security expert and social engineer. 216.64.167.154 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with the above that for his field he's very notable. I believe Drmies has an agenda with his comments. I am the original author of this and I wouldn't have created this article if he wasn't notable. He's winner of multiple Hacker events one such event is Defcon CTF the worlds biggest CTF as the Security Aegis article interview shows. He's also very famous for his social engineering talks and his SSL breakthrough. Johntame (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The owner needs to identify the correct references. Performed a search as suggested came back with 100s of things this will take a bit to wade through but to list some: (many of these may not be used as reference per guidelines please have owner go through them and utilize the correct ones) Informatica Economica journal http://revistaie.ase.ro/content/70/01%20-%20Greavu,%20Serban.pdf,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273708458_Social_Engineering_a_General_Approach which is cited by 3 other sources Social Engineering: Manipulating the human - https://books.google.com/books?id=8Wa9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Mike+Ridpath+%22social+engineering%22&source=bl&ots=M_K0-tj3jY&sig=cvJjt7NFsv7bFqfJ1IIAN2h90xY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifwo6L9qfKAhWCupQKHYWBChwQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=Mike%20Ridpath%20%22social%20engineering%22&f=false, Automated Social Engineering  - https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/170/34997/automated-social-engineering, World Public Library - http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/social_engineering_%28computer_security%29, The Art of Service | The IT Management Guide - http://clone2.theartofservice.com/social-engineering-computer-security-mike-ridpath.html, Phishing/Social Engineering - https://prezi.com/nw8wzvbvsa0m/phishingsocial-engineering, Social Psychology Research - http://studall.org/all3-27238.html, The Truth Denied Breaking News - http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2013/03/30/social-engineering-and-how-it-affects-you,  Computer IT Blog - Best Social Engineers - http://blinkcoding.blogspot.com/2013/04/best-social-engineers.html, Social Engineering - http://documents.mx/documents/social-engineering-security.html, Jock Pereira - https://jockpereira.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/what-exactly-is-social-engineering/, Academic Room, ICTEA - http://www.ictea.com/cs/knowledgebase.php?action=displayarticle&id=750&language=english 67.132.130.174 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's another reference for article owner to use Mitnick and Ridpath are noted: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on ICT Uses in Warfare and the Safeguarding of Peace 2012 (IWSP - is.ukzn.ac.za/Libraries/information_Security_documents/Proceedings.sflb.ashx and Mobile Devices and the Military: useful Tool or Significant Threat http://www.academia.edu/2548183/Mobile_Devices_and_the_Military_Useful_Tool_or_Significant_Threat and Journal of information Warfare Volume 11, Issue 3 - http://www.social-engineer.co.za/4.pdf
 * Keep There is enough here to show that Mike Ridpath is an expert in Social Engineering. The problem with the wiki that I'm realizing when searching for him is that he's done a lot but he doesn't seem noteworthy in anything but social engineering and computer security. I do understand the authors' intent but I believe a rewrite is needed with emphasis in this and nothing else is my opinion. 64.134.159.176 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) This is this editor's only edit on Wikipedia.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think the article needs to be redone just needs the references in the right places. The man has many that could be used just locate the ones that are more appropriate for each part. I just saw one of his talks for the first time at Zoncon (modeled after BlueHat I believe) this year. He also created the CTF and ran the Lockpicking booth. Jack of many trades. I'm connected to him on Linkedin. 54.240.196.169 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikignome420 and Jablestech are ✅ socks of Johntame. See Sockpuppet investigations/Johntame. I haven't struck any votes, but I would give no weight to the votes and comments of the IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I hadn't realised there had been an SPI. I've struck keeps and comments except for that of Johntame.  Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 17 January 2016 (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.