Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas M. Chaillan


 * 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. Ignoring the extensive socking, unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nicolas M. Chaillan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable founder of 6 non-notable companies. He then took a government position--there are two references given to show its importance, but neither does. ref 29 refers only to his previous position, and ref 30 is an office email that doesn't document his position-- not that it would be a RS in any event.  DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sounds like the kind of person from whom more will be heard in future years, but until it is, he's not notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Guys, Nicolas Chaillan was the founder of his first company at age 15. He founded 12 companies (not 6) and he sold over 180 products to over 40 fortune 500, making several millions of dollars. After making that much money, he decided to make a difference and sold some of his companies to join the USG. He is now the Chief Architect of Cyber.gov. For those who don't know, Cyber.gov is the world first holistic cyber architecture for all of the civilian federal agencies... Securing from DOJ to DOE to DHS... Over 436 agencies. That's not just a government position, this is one of the most senior position in the US Government in IT/Cyber. If that's not enough to be notable I don't know what you need... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.146.78 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)  — 71.48.146.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep Being the Chief Architect of DHS Cyber.gov is enough by itself. It's not public yet and that's why you have only two weak references. It will be published worldwide by July 1st so if you have doubts, let's wait but it is clearly notable. — Thomasnyc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking-through contribution from sockpuppet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC) *Keep he is one of the world renown cyber experts. Cyber is a different beast and people talk less about it but let's wait and see his publications but a simple Google search confirms that he is notable.
 * Duplicate !vote struck through. In the interests of assuming good faith, I've kept the later, longer rationale. User in question has deleted previous comments regarding conduct of this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you've had any success finding sources confirming his notability, please add them to the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just did. Amanda.
 * He already has over 25 articles including top tiers US newspaper. His company was named startup of the day by Microsoft. I am really not sure what more there is. Many other have way less than this. Not sure why suddenly he is being targeted. His page has been up for a year or so. His fund alone made him famous but his .gov appearance is even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F15E:4901:FC97:C88C:396A:DB02 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep His page has over 30 references proving his notability. I do not understand why we are reviewing this page. Reuters, Washington Post, Amazon, Microsoft, Washington Business Journal, Bloomberg. Those are top tier newspapers. That's why his page was approved in the first place. Now his DHS role that will be announced publicly, it seems we just have to wait to see how big this will be, but this will be on then news. The first cyber architecture of the US...

*Comment I added several significant references, including top tiers French newspaper and US. This confirm my initial decision. There is a lot more on Google about Nicolas Chaillan. At 32 years old, he is definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — AmandaCA87 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment by sockpuppet struck through. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

His fund was notable with dozens of articles. His company AFTER-MOUSE.COM was the first to create touch table solutions with Microsoft and his role at DHS IS completely public but the architecture isn't published yet. The article itself is not at all self promotional. I only hear jealousy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Strike-through comment of sockpuppet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is egregiously self-promotional. The fact that he "founds six companies before the age of thirty" is irrelevant if none of those companies are notable. A job which "isn't public yet", by definition, cannot be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep: this shouldn't even be a question. Being Chief Architect at DHS is enough to be notable but then you see that he had a 20M fund, 12 companies (plus AFTER-MOUSE.COM which is widely deployed here in Brazil... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroBrazil (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)  — AjejandroBrazil (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Strike-through contribution from sockpuppet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

*Keep: easy decision. Chief Architect DHS by 32, that by itself is notable. AFTER-MOUSE.COM is also quite notable. Having a 20M fund is also interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — WilliamMontreal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sock. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment some of these voters have obviously been canvassed by somebody with a personal interest in this article, or are just sock-puppets. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for the "AfD isn't a vote" template for a while (haven't had to use it forever, so I'd forgotten its name), as this is exactly what's required for this situation. Added now, and if it goes on for much longer I'm going to look at starting a sock investigation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about me you better back this up by real facts. People agreeing with each other doesn't mean there is some scam going on. Again this proves that people are just biased when it comes to handling other people who don't agree with them. Start any inquiry you want, I have the same right as you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely the same rights as everyone else. agreed. The concern was raised because it's unusual for a newly-registered editor (much less several and a couple of IPs) to make some of their first edits at an AfD. I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are other explanations, but it does seem odd to say the least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't talk about the other people as I don't know them, but I did already comment on several AfD I decided to start working on those for now as I'm not experienced enough with the editor. It doesn't mean I can't see who is notable or not. It seems none of you are from the US and the new cyber plan from DHS is of tremendous importance here. You might not realize it yet but it will impact us all. No one asked me to come or talk here. And as you can see they all have different names and IPs so they can't be related... at least I am not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the accounts have different names, yes. I didn't say they had the same name. As far as something which "will impact us all", I would point you to the essay WP:TOOSOON, which addresses that issue more comprehensively than I intend to here. Additionally, recall that notability isn't inherited. Even should the plan impact everyone, that would then suggest that an article should be written on it unless there are then the multiple third-party sources on any of the people behind it. Obviously in that situation there would most likely be those sources, but the argument that something will have a tremendous impact and therefore one of the people behind it is automatically notable doesn't work with the policies that Wikipedia runs on. Additionally, please remember to sign your posts. Just type four tilde characters (like this one ~) after your comment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the person that is creating the plan and that is Chief Architect shouldn't be notable? Sorry but having founded 12 companies plus a 20m fund plus that seems quite enough for me for a 32 years old. He has 33 references I really don't understand your point. The page has been up for years. Why is this coming out now when he works for the USG? That seems quite shady to me... I just don't even understand when we have porn actresses on this site with a profile but we don't want our top cyber experts? To be selected to do this by the US President should be quite enough??? AmandaCA87 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your point about too soon. But it isnt. It's not like he only did this before. Companies, fund, PHP. 33 references prove it isn't too soon. AmandaCA87 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to say as one of the original contributor of this page, I'm quite shocked that a deletion is being considered and I can't help but wonder why it is happening 2 years later, right when Nicolas Chaillan is selected by the President of the United States to manage their new cybersecurity. This seems quite shady. 33 references as Amanda said are more than most entry level pages on Wikipedia. Thomasnyc (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WilliamMontreal, AlejandroBrazil, and AmandaCA87 are ✅ socks of Thomasnc. See Sockpuppet investigations/Thomasnyc.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm persuaded by the arguments made by the nominator, especially regarding the documentation on being "Chief Architect" of a US-government cybersecurity division.  The first source (footnote 29) pre-dates the subject's hiring by the government and tells us only that he was a panel speaker at a government conference.  And the second is just an inter-office e-mail.  If the latter is evidence of notability, then everybody in that e-mail group would be notable (and, of course, they aren't).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete GNG not met. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2017 (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.