Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadim Kobeissi


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadim Kobeissi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This person is not notable, there are no major contribution by this individual in the field of computer security. He has only created Cryptocat which is not significant or novel in the information security world. There are no novel publication by the said individual. The individual is known for his self-promotion and the promotion of Cryptocat. It would not surprise me that the individual creating this article, "Chargerqueen", is a close individual or the same person of this article. ManWithTheBlackHat (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is marginal, as cryptocat is notable but obviously that's not inherited. However I think the NYT and the BBC interviews place enough emphasis on him personally as an interview subject to swing it. In contrast, the NYT Bits piece doesn't, as that's merely using him as a source of commentary about 'Sabu'. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A credible request by Nadim Kobeissi (and obviously I don't count the user:Kaepora account alone as sufficient proof of ID) to delete this would, IMHO, be a good reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (unless there is a request for deletion from the subject). I went to the article today to read about Kobeissi after seeing him mentioned by Denver Nicks in his Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History (2012). Nicks writes that Kobeissi was an early member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, and the way he writes it suggests notability: "Others were brought in, including Nadim Kobeissi, the Montreal-based, Lebanese-born hacker, freedom of information activist, and former friend to Adrian Lamo ..." (p. 223). SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: he was profiled by The New York Times last month, so he's clearly notable enough for an entry, on the understanding that he doesn't mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though being (past-tense) friends with Adrian Lamo isn't notable in and of itself.♥GlamRock♥ 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was that Nicks used the definite article: "Nadim Kobeissi, the Montreal-based, Lebanese-born hacker ...". It implied to me a degree of notability. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ManWithTheBlackHat (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable for the contributions Kobeissi has made in information security except for minor mentioning in various articles and opinion pieces, none of which shows contribution any significance for information security. Again, in the interview he is in, he isn't being interview for something novel and does not show his expertise, it only shows he is a good self-promoter at best.  The article show just self promotion and nothing about the individual's novel contribute to information security. Being mentioned that he was associated with an individual but without any note of contribute Kobeissi has made does not suggests notability.
 * Keep The creator of the AfD (ManWithTheBlackHat) seems to have a personal bias against the subject. Is there any credibility to back their claims?


 * Keep notability established by the NYT article cited. --Kvng (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There look to be enough sources to support notability, especially the NYT profile. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others have stated, notability has been established by ongoing mainstream press interest, as well as interest from notable computer security and cryptography researchers. Unless the subject has a stated objection to the article, this article should be kept.♥GlamRock♥ 13:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets the minimum criteria for personal notability. The allegation that he is a good self-promoter at best is unproven, unlikely, and in any case not a crime here unless there's an attempt to use Wikipedia for that purpose, and that's even less likely given the passions of the subject for moral use of the web. I note on the other hand that the proposer appears to be a single-purpose account whose only activity to date is to raise this AfD, for which they are the sole supporter. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2012 (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.