Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Heymann


 * 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. Consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. That this is a BLP violation/attack article is not borne out by the actual article. Citation from the National Law Journal alone suggests notability, and coverage is widespread enough. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Heymann
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Heymann has not received enough significant coverage outside of the Aaron Swartz case to meet notability standards. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. You know, back in the day, when this site wasn't a worthless pile of crap, people would actually research articles like this to determine whether they had legitimate merit instead of going by how many times it has been updated. Now he's been linked to another hacker suicide since this nomination has been posted.  He'll be household soon; he's certainly notable now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.100.251 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Kinda embarrassing to be agreeing with the last bit of invective, but, stripped of the vitriol, 192.30.100.251 has a point. There should be enough coverage of other prosecutions, most especially the connection to another computer hactivist who committed suicide after being exposed to Mr. Heymann's tender prosecutorial mercies to make out WP:GNG. I think the right course here is to find them and flesh out the article, getting us past the WP:BLP1E threshhold, not delete the article aborning. David in DC (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only significant coverage of other prosecutions by Heymann are the New York Times article on the Gonzalez case. All other articles only have one or two trivial mentions of Heymann, not enough to get past WP:BLP1E in my opinion. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, he has significant coverage on the Gonzalez case, and he certainly has significant coverage on the Swartz case-- that's the ballgame-- not just one event. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a point, but it's not the one you suggest. Let's take a look at the insertion of the supposed link to a previous suicide. In fact, Jonathan James committed suicide eight years after being sentenced in the case Heymann successfully prosecuted, and his suicide was related to new allegations of unrelated hacking.  Nor is there a credible basis for your assertion that James was "hacktivist"--in the previous case he hacked into the Department of Defense and among other things stole control code for a space station, without any public interest that I can see; in the later case tied to his suicide he seems to have been linked to stealing TJ Maxx customer information.  It's these sorts of assumptions (and you're not alone) that show that those voting to keep this article are in reality highly motivated to puff up perceived unfairness of treatment of Aaron Swartz, not to create a valid Wikipedia article on Stephen Heymann. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I also agree to KEEP, since this US Attorney has other controversial prosecutions. User:yogazeal —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject passes WP:BLP1E, as they were gaining coverage before the recent Swartz controversy. See the New York Times piece from 2010 which contains some biographical info, for example. Couple that with the sources about the Swartz case and he seems to qualify for an article. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. The AFD template was removed from the article for a period of 3 days, so it might be nice to extend the AfD review time. Assistant US Attorneys are by nature somewhat secretive, so it's hard to get a lot of information about them. While this might make them seem less notable than they otherwise might be, there's reason to think the press and the media are in the process of trying to find more information about Heymann, and that process is slow (certainly that's my direct experience). And while that doesn't directly relate to Wikipedia, and we don't expect original research to contribute to this article, I do think it means that there will be more sources available to flesh out this article in a month, at which point it'll be easier to judge the merits. The other problem is that there is currently a desire for people to know more about Heymann, and there isn't really another good place the Heymann-specific information. Carmen Ortiz is the wrong place, Aaron Swartz isn't really the right one, and United States v. Aaron Swartz is just a redirect right now, though that could easily change. jhawkinson (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- US Attorneys are notable as agents of government, RSes show at least two notable cases.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heymann is not a US Attorney. He is an assistant US attorney - a much less notable position. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not just an Asst, he's Deputy Chief of Criminal Division. Mainly, he's had several high-profile cases and has gotten notability through news coverage of those various cases. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deputy Chief of Criminal Division is pretty much just an Asst. Being Deputy Chief of Criminal Division does not make him or anyone else who holds that position notable. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "several high-profile cases". Two is not several. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, he is no longer Deputy Chief, though he was ten years ago. Cf. talk. jhawkinson (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep --it is obvious that the United States Justice system has overreached in this case and this information is significant to the American public. To delete this item would go against everything that Wikipedia stands for. This is a high profile case and has received attention from The Rolling Stone, Huffington Post and others. Those looking to delete cannot hide the information already online regarding the overreach of the government in this case. This article should be expanded as more information is made available. To date there is a White House petition that has already been signed by over 47,000 United States Citizens in less than 10 days. --User:elogical1 (talk) 4:44, 25 January 2013 (CST)
 * Comment I've added another source for the Gonzalez/Wall prosecution and moved derogatory, sourced stuff out of the lede, per WP:UNDUE. There's a lot more out there, that's not Swartz-related. Please help rescue this article about this notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2013‎ (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about it - it looks pretty likely to be kept now, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- we might revisit this in 12-18 months to see whether we change our minds, but right now it seems clear that he's a player in an ongoing controversy over computer crime that, while not limited to specific cases, has involved cases that are garnering very significant attention and that are likely to prove influential.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page seems to be created and edited with the goal of character assassination.  Heymann is not notable merely by being an assistant U.S. Attorney, nor is he notable by being involved with a notable case.  Among the problems with keeping the article, the inclusion of a previous non-notable case in this bio piece has obviously only been made to suggest that Heymann causes people to commit suicide; and the voting system for keeping or deletion is broken with respect to this matter, due to the bias of many of those posting here related to this topic.  For instance, note the comment by elogical1 above that "it is obvious that the United States Justice system has overreached in this case"; elogical1 cannot be dispassionate enough for a proper vote, due to the obvious motivation to soapbox about the Aaron Swartz case (which is notable enough but does not confer notability on all involved whenever Wikipedia editors simply want to attack them). HectorMoffet is highly involved in putting a pro-defense spin on the Aaron Swartz article, and here in his vote for keeping has misrepresented Heymann's notability: as another has noted, two is not "several", and prosecutors commonly do appear in news articles related to cases they prosecute, even relatively minor ones.  The article itself is a thinly disguised attack piece.  It suggests strongly that Heymann caused the death of Jonathan James, who committed suicide at age 24 after being sentenced at age 16.  Under the biased logic of the contributors to the Heymann page, he will be subject to further attacks if anyone he's ever successfully prosecuted commits suicide at any future time, no matter how remote.  It is also interesting that though James has his own page on Wikipedia, the link has been cleverly left out--as has the span of years between his case and his suicide--to suggest that the prosecution directly caused his suicide:
 * Heymann was instrumental in prosecuting Jonathan James and Stephen Watt.[3] James committed suicide, leaving behind a note claiming innocence.[3][6]
 * As a matter of fact, he committed suicide eight years later, and as James's page makes clear, his reason (and proclamation of innocence) was related to new alleged hacking from that later time frame.
 * This is simply not good encyclopedic editing. As the sole reason for the existence of this article is not the notability of Heymann but a personal attack, and he is not notable in his own right, the article must be deleted.  The fact that there are so many votes to keep it, and the editing history of the article, merely points out that this is one of the times that Wikipedia voting rules can't prevent majority bias from tainting the encyclopedia.  If the users voting here reach a tainted consensus based on their wish to attack the perceived enemies of Aaron Swartz, the page should still be deleted for multiple violations of Wikipedia rules related to notability/undue weight and bias.75.67.246.17 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, as the James page makes clear, Heymann prosecuted James (and made him the first juvenile ever jailed in a federal institution over a cybercrime) in one case (hacking NASA). James didn't deny it. Heymann was investigating him a second time, years later. It was the second investigation (TJX hack and Heartland Payment Systems hack) - in which Watt was convicted and James was allegedly an unindicted co-conspiritor - that brought the Secret Service to James' house and that led to his suicide. James vehemently protested his innocence in that case, but his suicide note indicated that he did not trust the judicial system. It was all on the James page, if one actually read it and the sources. The Heymann page now does link to the James page. One wonders if it wouldn't have been better practice to actually read the James page, discern the obvious differences between the two James cases and insert the link from Heymann to James, rather than to spout nonsense about the link being "cleverly left out" or James having "committed suicide at 24 after being sentenced at 16" or "he will be subject to further attacks if anyone he's ever successfully prosecuted commits suicide at any future time, no matter how remote."David in DC (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The delete votes argue not-notable but are not based in Wikipolicy. I agree this article requires some clean up and POV parsing but when you have sources such as the New York Times doing a biographical piece in-depth interview before the Swartz case even started it should raise some flags. Mkdw talk 20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The New York Times did not do a biographical piece on Heymann, but instead included one paragraph about him in a much larger article about Albert Gonzalez. This one article does not show that Heymann is significant outside of one event --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. Nonetheless the coverage of Heymann and his case is extensive. It's practically an interview with him. Mkdw talk 21:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Added Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award, additional info about conviction of Albert Gonzalez, additional info about conviction of Watt and connection between Watt/James TJX hacker case and Gonzalez Heartland Payment systems case. Deleted reference to Carmen Ortiz. With the award, the TJX case, and the Heartland case, plus the deletion of Ortiz's name and the link for Swartz to US v. Swartz instead of the whole Swartz article, I think we've easily met WP:GNG and ameliorated any lingering WP:COATRACK concerns. WP:SNOW? David in DC (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well...no, I don't think you meet WP:GNG, much less easily. You can't find Heymann's real title anywhere (chief of cyber crimes). You can't find a picture of him online. This fails 'significant coverage.' jhawkinson (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award and info about the Watt and James cases as they did not have a reliable source. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Info is now reliably sourced. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:COATRACK, and on notability grounds. Clearly created as an attack article. Wikipedia isn't the place to fix great wrongs, real or otherwise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to know the motivation of the creator of an article. But even if it were knowable, this is not now an attack article. If it ever was, it's been rescued, by good-faith, collaborative editing.
 * This is a notable person. He's been covered in multiple reliable sources, about activities unrelated to US. v. Swartz. Try this experiment. Ignore the last two paragraphs. Read about his current job, his being a computer crime specialist, his distinguished service award, the Heartland Case and the TJX case. (You'll read the bit about his father too, but while it's an interesting biographical fact, it carries no weight for notability. That doesn't mean it comes out, but it doesn't go on the balance.)  What you've now got is a pre-eminant federal cyber-crime prosecutor, recognized as such by the National Law Journal in one verbatim quote, and by the U.S. Attorney-General's Distinguished Service Award, reported in several reliable sources, plus the DOJ press release on the award. These facts come from: the National Law Journal, the New York Times, the UK Daily Mail, Bloomberg Businessweek, RT, Wired and the Huffington Post. There's supporting information from his bio in the program of a conference of the First Judicial Circuit, the website of the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office and the legal blog of a notable legal scholar the US DOJ website. Focus on the edits, not the initial editor or your perception of that and/or other editors' purpose. If the subject is sufficiently notable, as established in reliable sources, the article should stay.
 * In my view, the Swartz stuff should stay, too. It's also notable and found in numerous reliable sources. Having the article without it, in 2013, would be crazy.  But, divining murky motivations ought not be the crux of the analysis of this article or this AfD. I, myself, have often thought six impossible things before breakfast. David in DC (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2013 (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.