Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Slade


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Slade

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Non notable person. Numerous refs are not independent of the subject. See talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Nicely done bio, may I add. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree - it is nicely done but does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There might actually be enough to keep here, however your response here makes me question how great all of the other sources provided are, if this is what you consider a cross section of sufficient WP:RS, non-primary sources. I realize you're also trying to make a point that he's respected enough to have him on a jacket cover, and therefore he's notable, but that link is simply too attenuated and it doesn't answer Willbennett's original question. I would !vote keep if someone would point out a third party source indicating notability with a little bit more substance. Shadowjams (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. I must be missing something. When you sort through the non neutral point of view material that comes primarily from the subjects own books and web page his career acheivements seem to be: having written 4 books, having done a lot of book reviews, and having worked on some USENET FAQs. He is not a professor at any university, not a recipient of any major prize in his field (IEEE, ACM, etc.), not an editor for any journal.  In short, from what I can tell, most local college computer science instructors would have similar notability.Willbennett2007 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a fairly well known and respected security consultant who's written some books about virus's and malware. Maybe borderline WP:BIO fail, but well worth keeping for reference. scope_creep (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide some third party sources (i.e. not from the author or his publisher) that establish his notability? I have been told by more experienced wikipedians that even subjects who have published far more books than Mr. Slade, may not be notable enough for wikipedia?Willbennett2007 (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Willbennett2007. Here are a few places that choose to reference him in what I consider to be a notable way (no awards to write home about but I wouldn't have written this biography if I didn't think it was worthwhile): O'Reilly, Linux Security, Eset (first published in Virus Bulletin), Amazon.com -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The O'Reilly link is a quote by him about an O'Reilly BIND book, The linux security link is them giving him a book review column, and your eset link is to a book review of his book. Amazon is him reviewing another book.
 * Shadowjams, perahps you can answer a more fundamental question for me. My understanding is that simply being an author is not enough for notability. Even the volume of books written does not make an author notable. OK, what does make an author notable?Willbennett2007 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shadowjams, that's fine, now that you've corrected your response. Nope I don't think any of these source are good enough to include in the article. They are only to give some indication of what people think of Mr. Slade. I plan to not respond again in this thread because as John Lennon wrote, "better get back in the shade". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per scope_creep. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those links, but what I saw was a publisher press release and a website using his book reviews.  So I come back to this: the only claim to fame I see for this subject is writing 4 books(which btw where almost unanimously slammed by Amazon reviewers) and doing book reviews.  That hardly seems 'notable' to me.   More to the point I do not believe you have provided anything that meets Wikipedia notability guidelines: What I see is a guy who wrote a couple of books, that not only have not 'been widely cited' but in fact are given poor reviews.  I am not aware of him creating any 'new concept'. And I am not aware of him having been given 'significant critical attention'.  I am just learning the notability guidelines myself. But it is my understanding that simply writing a few books is not sufficient. I am hoping a more experienced wikipedian can weigh in on that issue.Willbennett2007 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He obviously doesn't pass WP:PROF, and I don't think the reviews of his books that I can find in Google news archive rise to the level of WP:CREATIVE. Merely writing books (and more, merely contributing to mailing lists and web sites) is clearly not enough for notability: the books have to have some demonstrated significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 18 August 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.