Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom St Denis


 * 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. The issue here is notability, and the contributors wishing to keep the article are not addressing this issue from the point of view of the pertinent guideline WP:BIO (as does Mus Musculus, at the very bottom of the discussion). Under these circumstances, I'm inclined to use my discretion to honour the express wish of the subject of the article and declare a consensus in favour of deletion. Sandstein 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom St Denis

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable crypto software author; subject has requested page be deleted, saying, "With respect to Tom_St_Denis I did not put the page there, nor do I want a page about myself on Wikipedia. Please remove it. Same goes for LibTom_Project. I don't think Wikipedia should be polluted with small projects and people, and I certainly don't  want to be known as a person to cause such pollution." &mdash; &mdash; Matt Crypto  01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 50k ghits for his exact name, published author with his books on amazon, reviews of said books out there....it's not a slam-dunk keep, maybe, and the article has some NPOV issues, but he seems notable enough to warrant an article. Darkspots 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Maybe in a year or two WP will be big enough it'll be a no-brainer to keep articles on marginally notable programmers/authors, but for the moment I don't think so. Also ghits is a misleading metric here, because the subject is very active poster on usenet and other forums. Arvindn 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per darksposts. &mdash; Seadog 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Less talk, more deletion. -- Tom
 * Keep He might not want his page to be up there, but what counts is notability. 50k google hits is ok for a keep.. Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Son of a ..., other cryptographers have more ghits like "Brian Gladman" who has ~55khits. Are we to make pages for them as well?  Just delete the damn page already. -- Tom


 * Keep Yes, in a completed Wikipedia those cryptographers should have articles as well. --Nick Roberts 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't know what are the policies, but if the subject asks to remain anonymous, it's a sign of respect to do so. Alejandro Mery 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete out of respect for the subject. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm about to apply my personal "book notability" test, which is "a book with Amazon sales rank of better than 200,000." (I picked that number when Wikipedia had about 400,000 articles, reasoning that less than half of Wikipedia's articles ought to be about books. I've stuck with it, for no good reason. However I've found it to be a good way of discriminating between "real" books and self-published and/or very obscure academic titles). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Cryptography for Developers has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #106,787. (Bignum Math at #220,533 doesn't quite make the cut). He's a real author of a real book. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to decide to keep the listing could we at least make it a bit more informational and less ripped from the bio of my latest book? -- Tom
 * Keep. I think he is notable enough in his field.  Published author, publishers provide biographies (Elsevier, O'Reilly).  Needs a clean-up. QuiteUnusual 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Update Well fine, y'all want to keep the page. My only suggestion is that it gets a clean up and reflects who I really am (positive and negative, it should be truthful and lets face it I'm not a perfect fellow).  Also, probably should merge the LibTom page into this.  (Note:  I still want the page to be deleted.  I'm only offering more acceptable alternatives in case for some reason deletion isn't possible, which it should be because it's about me...!!! ... ok enough wiki'ing, I'm a bit drunk off of Redbull Vodka at the moment... weee...) -- Tom
 * Suggestion. It's not considered a good idea to edit articles about yourself, but I don't see why you couldn't draft some paragraphs or suggest some changes on the article's Talk page, Talk:Tom St Denis. Be sure to indicate any sources we could use... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't want to come off as rude. I'm just really motivated to have the articles removed.  It's also probably not a good idea if I draft paragraphs about myself.  That'd be kinda self-serving wouldn't it?  The current article lacks details to be of interest to anyone, and even if it were flushed out with more content I still don't see what's so notable about myself to warrant an article.  If you guys think you're going to hurt my feelings by voting for deletion you're mistaken.  I'm the one who pushed for the deletion in the first place! -- Tom


 * Comment: it seems to me that neither the act of publishing books nor posting lots on the Internet provides notability. I'm usually happy to let sub-notable articles be, but when the subject is a non-notable living person who has expressed a wish not to be included, then we should not include them. Please be certain that this person is genuinely notable before we keep it against his wishes. &mdash; Matt Crypto 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Some local media may be doing interviews with me about my doings (setup by my employer ...).  If the community wants to keep the article about me, maybe they can use the published interview(s) for material? -- Tom
 * Yep, that sort of thing is an ideal source. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You're digging your grave on the notability question, Tom. Cheers, Darkspots 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? Once and for all, I'm for deletion.  But failing that, I'd at least want an article about me to be interesting :-), you know, sanity gives way to ego.  -- Tom
 * I think you've been very clear, actually, Tom; nobody here doubts your earnest desire to see your article deleted. What my "digging the grave" reference to is that you are saying that new sources proving your notability are about to emerge--the best sort of sources for showing notability, that is, genuine media that's independent of you.  The nominator claims that you are non-notable, which would, according to policy, be the only real reason to delete the article.  You're bringing forth new evidence of your notability, thus undercutting your expressed desire. Darkspots 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Well, to be honest I think it's the marketting folk at my job who talked the local media into it.  Though they do seem intrigued about my politics and how I "used the Internet to build a Career."  I'm not trying to say what I've been doing for the last five years was trivial or unimportant.  I just have to question, in the face of all the other OSS projects out there, how unique and notable it is.  It'd be like if you were a really good coal miner.  Even if you did a good job, worked hard, etc, do you deserve a wiki article?  The only real thing that stands out between myself and other OSS developers is my desire to release to the public domain instead of copyleft.  -- Tom
 * We take these things one at a time. Plenty of people argue (these are folks arguing to keep their articles, you understand) that there are many articles of, say, bands just as notable as theirs.  Doesn't matter, all you can evaluate is the article in front of you.  Same argument applies to Tom St Denis, just in reverse. And, coal miners are not inherently notable, they have to do something truly unexpected to achieve notice.  Guys who write books, on the other hand--keep your nose clean, work hard, get the reviews, you get a wiki article.  Plus, Tom, you've got a catchy name for your product.  Never underestimate the power of a catchy name.  Darkspots 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've added info to the talk page if you guys want to rebuild the article and keep it. At least with some details it'll be worth having the slightly elevated profile around.
 * Delete. Looking at the stuff Tom has done, I'm inclined to say that he's borderline notable at present. What sways me towards deletion is his pleasing modesty.
 * Tom, my own view is that a really good coal miner could certainly qualify for an article here. In assessing people's work-related notability I look for two things: first, have they accomplished something by their own efforts that makes them stand out in their field ? and/or second, are they recognised by their peers, and by the broader public, for their work ? So a coal miner could certainly qualify, perhaps if he were highly productive ( for example, we have an article on Aleksei Grigorievich Stakhanov, who was noted for his zealous workmanship ( though there are also doubts as to precisely what happened on that historic day ) ), or perhaps if he in some other way performed at the peak of his profession. The same is obviously true for any other person in any other field of human endeavour. Right now it appears, from the comments of people more expert in the field of computers than I, that you are doing a great job. Your own opinion is that you're not quite unique or notable enough, though, and ( even allowing for some gentlemanly modesty ) you're probably one of the best judges of that, so I'm prepared to go with deletion for the moment. But watch out: people know your name, and are talking about you, so you're definitely at risk of having an article at some stage ! With best wishes for the future. WMMartin 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. The way I see it, being a bit over-modest is always a good idea.  It's all too tempting to drop your guard and let the ego soar.  As another pointed out, usually people are fighting to keep their vanity pages because they lost perspective and think they're really worthy of notability.  I'd rather lean towards the side of caution and due process.  To be honest, my notability would be better proven when all those, whom I presumably (*) touched through my efforts come forward to offer testimony, then by simply listing a couple of books and a URL to some source code.  I admit it seems odd that I argue for deletion instead of keeping it.  It isn't because I'm anti-social or self-destructive.  Just that I have enough respect for what Wikipedia is attempting to not let my personal ego interfere with the process.  (* based on the concensus assumption I'm currently notable). -- Tom
 * Comment It's refreshing when a subject of a wikipedia article not only takes interest in wikipedia but also keeps a level head when they learn about their page and that it may be kept against their wishes. I do hope that tom sticks around and updates other wikipedia articles as well.  I am sure he has vast experiance in different areas that would definately be a big help to wikipedia.  On a site note: I admire the stance to publish into the PD instead of Copyleft.  That alone should be a point of notability and what science/research is all about. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added to a few articles already (not my own :-)) including the article about ToorCon and the list of Cryptographers. I don't have a wiki user but I'm considering making one... -- Tom


 * Comment What's the call? I'm still in favour of deletion on non-notability grounds.  I think we should close this discussion once and for all.  I'm not closed to the idea in the future about an article (if the circumstances warrant it), but as I see it now this isn't the case.  -- tom
 * Deletion debates aren't usually concluded earlier than five days after they start, which means there's some seven hours or so before this one becomes eligible to be closed. The article will almost certainly be kept, though, given that there's no consensus to delete. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there enough citable resources to fill out a competent article? I think if you really press some of the voters here for wiki-worthy material they may realize the folly of their ways.  I'll bet most voted to keep out of some misguided attempt to avoid hurting my feelings or something.  As it stands now, the only published material with my name on it are the two books.  And aside from the prefaces of both there isn't much material that discusses Tom or his wacky LibTom Projects.  Again, I encourage people to re-evaluate the situation. -- Tom
 * I don't think there are enough citable sources to fill out more than a few sentences. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then do what you know is right. -- Tom

Merge The LibTom Project page is about his software. This page is about him as a software writer which seems to be the only thing he is currently notable for. Assuming that he systematically becomes more notable for other things a higher quality article could be compiled. For now it seems as though his claim to fame is as an "upcomming cryptographer" and as such could be mentioned in articles about cryptographers and in a page about his software. Paul Hjul 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the LibTom Project AfD currently stands at 9-0 in favour of deletion article has been deleted. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In light of that deletion, and the recent modifications to the article, doesn't it seem legitimate to process the deletion request with the utmost haste? This is the sort of information people can find with Google and has no place in an Encyclopedia.  -- Tom


 * Delete. One of the criterion of WP:BIO is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work".  The article establishes that he is published, but at least two of the books are public domain projects and I cannot find any evidence that any of his works meet the requirement of being subject to multiple independent reviews. Mus Musculus 13:28, 14 December 2006 (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.