Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Goldstein


 * 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 per WP:BLP1E. Risker (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Goldstein

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete per WP:NPF: "...include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." - most of this information in this article is not relevant to the subject's notability. Also, "Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." This article does not satisfy these requirements. Goldstein is still known for only one thing. Walker was featured on 60 minutes, etc. There is not even a file photo for Goldstein in any articles about him, all of which are for only ONE thing, which provides for deletion of the article as per WP:BLP1E. The subject of this article is not notable according to the guidelines (thousands of people are charged with aiding and abetting to gain unauthorized access to a server, and they do not have a Wikipedia article). Much of this article is written without verifiable sources. Some of the sources that are included are dubious at best; for example, the article in "The Register" used as a reference relies solely on information provided by other (probably rival) hackers. Additionally, this article was written by an individual with a vested interest in disparaging the subject of the article. For these reasons, this article should be deleted. Cypher55 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, only got attention for one thing. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In Notability_(people), it states this may be the case for a 'particular relatively unimportant crime.' However, Goldstein was investigated by the FBI as apart of a major counter-cyberattack program called Operation: Bot Roast.  The amount of news coverage regarding Goldstein at the national and local level show that this was not an unimportant crime.  He was charged and convicted in a federal court.Professional Internet User (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Professional Internet User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The majority of articles mentioning Goldstien did so only mentioning that he was one of the eight involved in Operation: Bot Roast; in fact, he caused the least damage of all of those involved and did not profit at all. He just happened to be a part of this press release, one of the least significant individuals. The vast, vast majority of those convicted in a federal court do not have Wikipedia entries; Goldstein should be no different. The only secondary sources referring to Goldstein are for this one specific event. He is not notable enough to have his own article. Cypher55 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I wrote the original article. Cypher55 accused me of having a vested interest in ruining Goldstein.  I'd like to know how he got this information.  You may notice if you look up Cypher55's username, he registered right after I made this article in order to change its contents.  He even vandalized the sandbox page, User:Professional_Internet_User/Ryan_Goldstein, I was using before I sent the article over to the main Wikipedia site.  Sounds like he is the one with 'vested interest.'  In regards to sources, if The Register is not a good enough source, I will remove it.  But don't tell me this article isn't notable when the United States Department of Justice, International Herald Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Daily Pennsylvanian are not good enough.  Want some more sources?  Here is one from msnbc.com.  Or how about foxnews.com.  (these are omitted from the page for redundancy purposes).  No sources is a ridiculous statement to make.  I also noticed in the changes that he removes references to child pornography, which is found in most of the sources listed on the page.  I also would like to note that Goldstein's accomplice Owen Walker has had a page and he is now cross listed in the Operation: Bot Roast page.  This information can easily be found through the sources listed on the page.  I noticed that Cypher55 has been removing sources on the main page to hide information, so you may need to check the history to see that there are 7 sources.  Even more can be added since this has been covered on numerous, independent mainstream news networks.Professional Internet User (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Professional Internet User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Replying to your own AfD? Why not just make another sock puppet account?  You said that most of the information is not relevant to the subject's notability.  Most of the article text (80%) is dedicated to the arrest and sentence of Goldstein.  That is HIGHLY relevant to the notability.  The child pornography charges that were dropped can be changed to include the word "allege", but keep in mind this is mentioned in many of the highly notable sources in the article.  It is not damaging to a person's private life when this is mentioned in all these national media outlets.  You cannot hide the facts from Wikipedia when other independent agencies are reporting it.  Walker was on the NZ version of 60 minutes, which is not nearly as notable as other sources Goldstein is found, such as the foxnews and msnbc stories I posted in my response.  I'm curious, are you still changing the article to make it look less notable and easier to delete?  Professional Internet User (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Professional Internet User (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not that child pornography charges were dropped, it's that no child pornography charges were ever filed. As such, it was never proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Goldstein was ever in possession of this content. It is simply an unproven assertion, and claims to this effect are, in effect, libelous. To emphasize, Goldstein was only charged with a single misdemeanor of 'aiding and abetting another person to gain unauthorized access to a protected computer'. As such, the subject of this article only got attention for one thing, which directly contradicts the WP:NPF requirement, as well as WP:ONEEVENT ("If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The only articles about Goldstein refer to this one event. Clearly not a candidate for a separate biography here). If not a deletion, at least a merge and redirect to the Operation: Bot Roast article would suffice (as suggested in ONEEVENT: "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options"). There is simply not enough notability according to the guidelines for Goldstein to have his own article. Cypher55 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As another point, WP:NPF mentions that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures." Please note that there is not one word regarding child pornography in any of the government documents (DOJ Press Release or DOJ Indictment (since downgraded to an Information)). Cypher55 (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "... and he is now cross listed in the Operation: Bot Roast page..." - Professional Internet User added the cross-list himself. He's trying to make the subject seem more notable than he is. Cypher55 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lrge number of reliable sources indicating notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these sources refer to only one event. Refer to WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." "Cover the event, not the person." Cypher55 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Far too many reliable sources to take this down. This may be a 'one event' type of article, but this one event is quite big.  A common criminal robbing a convenient store shouldn't get a Wiki page, but being investigated by the FBI and convicted in a US federal court for cyber crimes is definitely notable.  I also noticed he received a harsher punishment than his partner in crime Owen Walker, so its hard justifying keeping Owen's page while concurrently deleting Ryan's.Chubr0ck (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been literally hundreds of cyber crimes convicted in a US federal court. Refer to DOJ list of cyber crimes (note: this list is not comprehensive and only contains 'notable' cases, and Goldstein is not included in this list). The vast majority of these individuals do not have their own article, and they all committed larger charged cyber crimes than Goldstein and all who received punishments had harsher ones than him (i.e. the first entry in the list received 30 months and had to pay a $504,000 fine, while Goldstein received 3 months). Cypher55 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Referring to your other point, Walker was the first individual in New Zealand to be charged with a cyber crime (notable), and he caused over $20,000,000 in economic damages (notable). He was let off because the NZ judge determined a conviction would 'harm his future potential'. As a result of the media coverage, he has received many job offers, including an offer from the New Zealand government to help with computer crimes (notable). The damage that Goldstein caused was an insignificant $5000 to his University, just barely over the line of the amount that is a prerequisite of the crime for which he was initially indicted (not notable). Cypher55 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Cypher55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * While I have to disagree with the above per WP:WAX I think the article is sourced well, and while it might fall under BLP1E I'd say to Keep Q  T C 02:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete He is in the media for only one thing. Not notable. 166.196.77.161 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) — 166.196.77.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete thousands of people have been charged with the same stuff, barely any of them have a Wiki, shouldn't even need to be debated, delete this. 32.165.170.92 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC) — 32.165.170.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It meets WP:GNG. It has been covered in many notable sources, such as fox news, the new york times, and msnbc. --IcyFlamez (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Still goes against the WP:BLP1E policy, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." 166.197.148.212 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As several other users mentioned, while this article provides reliable sources and is definitely a media issue, the entire article is based solely around one event, which is contradictory to WP:N. Might be suitable for a page on hackers, but not a biography. No qualms with notability, however.Spring12 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:1E. "Cover the event, not the person." - the event is Operation: Bot Roast, it's already covered. 158.130.22.248 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This deletion review now has four suspicious single-edit IP users claiming delete. The last IP, 158.130.22.248, translates to the University of Pennsylvania where Ryan Goldstein is currently enrolled.  This can be verified through this ARIN search.  Combined with the fact that User:Cypher55 registered after this article was made in order to get it deleted, I believe this is negatively influencing the outcome of this review. Professional Internet User (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I recently read an article about Operation: Bot Roast and wanted to find more information. I was shocked that Ryan, who was only in the news for one event, had his own article here (as I know that directly violates policy). Because this is a relatively controversial topic, I do not want my other account (which I've had registered here for several years) marred by participation here. In regard to the UPenn IP, there are over 20,000 people at the University of Pennsylvania. I've also noticed that 'Professional Internet User' has made no contributions here for over two years, and has only edited one article, once, in the entire history of his account. Cypher55 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Research Since 'Professional Internet User' wanted to comment on the IP address comments (which are located around the country, in New Jersey, Florida, and Pennsylvania), I decided to do a bit of research myself (can easily be verified through simple Google searches). Cypher55 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Chubr0ck', who voted to keep, is an active, long-time member of myg0t - an article disparaging Ryan is on the front page of their website. Conflict of interest.
 * 'OverlordQ', who voted to keep, is also an active, long-time member of myg0t. Conflict of interest.
 * 'IcyFlamez', who voted to keep, is an active, long-time member of darkscience, an IRC network that Ryan frequented a lot for several years. Conflict of interest.
 * WP:COI I think you should read WP:COI and see how it applies to you before you start making accusations. Most notably the part about "Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy."  I'm curious, how do you know that Ryan used to frequent an IRC network named darkscience.  I've been googling for awhile and can't find any evidence.  Do you know something I don't? Professional Internet User (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd just like to point out that conflict of interest does not just mean someone else's interests conflict with yours Blocky (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusion In my count, there is only one person here who MIGHT not have a conflict of interest who voted to keep, Edward321. Conversely, Ten Pound Hammer  with over 90,000 edits voted to delete, and Spring12 with many recent edits from before this article was written, both voted to delete. In the interest of following policy and avoiding conflict of interest, I propose that an administrator minimize the importance of the discussion here, and instead follow the policy established regarding biographies of living people. It's very clear to me that this is an archetypal example of a biography of an individual who is only covered in reliable sources for one event, and thus does not warrant a separate biography per WP:BLP1E. Cypher55 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Cypher in case you didn't notice I'll quote the second half of the NPF guidelines you quote above: "Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." It would seem that it's fair to keep as long as the word allege is there, as far as the child pornography charges go. The computer crime, obviously, is more than an allegation. As a matter of opinion, I think the very allegation of a child pornography charge being dropped to a minor computer crime in exchange for cooperation with federal authorities qualifies as noteworthy and deserves a public discussion and record thereof. Also I don't think the presence or absence of a photo on any article really enters into this discussion., and I'd like to point out that it's a bit premature to tag your own comment as a conclusion when this discussion is clearly not settled. Blocky (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Another subject to this case shows the appearance of racial inequality in the court system. Ryan Goldstein was convicted with botnetting, but was able to avoid child porn charges.  An African American man was given more time (2 years) for just the child porn.  They were sentenced together so that the judge could make a point.  This is a separate event to Operation: Bot Roast and definitely notable. Professional Internet User (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree Please note that Blocky has not made any contributions in nearly 3 years, and he is also an active, long-time myg0t member, a harassment group with an article disparaging Ryan on their front page. Another conflict of interest. This is essentially recruiting people from a community to try to keep an article here that clearly should not be based on the WP:1E policy. There is still only ONE person without a very clear conflict of interest who has voted to keep this article. Cypher55 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Cypher55, In the vein of assuming good faith I'd prefer not to start an argument. I would like to direct you, however, to my previous comment regarding the meaning of the phrase 'conflict of interest.' My affiliation with myg0t, if anything, gives me a more informed viewpoint on the issue than many Wikipedians who are new to this particular issue. At any rate, we seem to have digressed substantially from the topic at hand, namely which, if any, specific Wikipedia rules have been violated by this article. Please try to stay on topic. 96.50.69.12 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2009 (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.