Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Vogt (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Keeper  |   76  20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Vogt

 * - (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep. The previous AfD discussion for this article resulted in a weak keep, and there is no reason to believe the subject is less notable now than six months ago.  Sagsaw (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of previous afds cannot be used as a reason for keeping an article. The article must meet notability criteria. -- neon white user page talk 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Submission of patches to SELinux policies is hardly notable. Being sued by DVD-CCA is not notable as up to 500 others were also sued for this. This leaves writing some non notable games and beta testing Tribes 2.Spatulacity (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does everyone who has ever added any code to a somewhat noteworthy project get his/her own page? The other stuff is even less noteworthy. Are you noteworthy just because you are a beta tester? I think just about every computer gamer I have ever met would be noteworthy under those rules. CaptainObvious2007 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspedted this user to be a sockpuppet. Has no other posts and uses the same incorrect formatting as Spatulacity -- neon white user page talk 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine they're both simply following the formatting used by Sagsaw in the first comment. I see no reason to assume sockpuppetry. Jfire (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. new accounts and rarely used accounts are always prone to suspicion. -- neon white user page talk 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I see it, the only thing that changed since the last AfD is that someone who posted on the discussion page that he wants the article gone has done multiple edits to remove content and references. Google also shows several mentions of non-Internet media, such as this page which apparently belongs to a a part of the austrian television ORF. There are more hits pointing to german and norwegian newspapers and more. The deleted content should be restored and evaluated before another AfD is made. --Arcanios (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * GHits is hardly a measure of notability - especially for computer related topics. Which deleted content are you referring to? Is it substantial in nature, in that it refers to some type of independent development, referenced text, or anything that is significant in the computer security community or even computing community? My reasoning for resubmitting the AfD is that debate was very weak with 2 out of 4 keeps regarding DeCSS. This takes trivial research to refute, leaving the subjects importance along the same lines as google notability. Spatulacity (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the edits by User:Tqbf? Those look like good faith and appropriate edits to me. That editor is an expert in computer security. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Cannot find any real assetions of notability here. No evidence of him being published in notable journals, you can't be notable for simply doing your job, being sued and putting your name on a letter to congress.  -- neon white  user page talk 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Just because an article doesn't have notability written in it doesn't mean it's not notable. If someone can establish notability, then there's no reason for the article to be deleted, but if after some time notability can't be found at all, then it should be deleted. Redphoenix526 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's part of deletion policy, what was the point in posting that? -- neon white user page talk 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no evidence in the article, in the article's sources, or in the sources cited on this page that he is notable.  The sources are nonreliable sources and/or contain trivial mentions.  A Google search suggests that he may not even be the most notable person named "Tom Vogt," as pages on a voice actor and a medical doctor come up early.  The previous AFD was a weak keep, which suggests that none of the !voters were confident about his notability.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Apart from the self produced documentation stating his involvement with the whole DeCSS affair, there appears to be very little other reference to it from reliable 3rd party sources. Even the Wiki page lacks reference to him. Being sued does't make one notable. If perhaps he'd written or reverse engineered the code he may be, but talking about it does not constitute notability, nor does writing or beta testing on-line games (in the context of computer security experts)

TheHammockDistrict (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete --- I spent some time investigating this article (as noted above, I made several edits to attempt to clean the article up), and determined that Vogt's contributions to these projects are at best superficial, on the order of configuration files. Many hundreds of people are sued in the "copyfight" by the content industry every year --- certainly WP isn't expected to maintain an article for everyone who received an RIAA subpoena. Apart from being sued, the remainder of the content here is just puffery --- "was active in", "laid the groundworks for", "worked with others to". Distilled to its bare essence, this is an article about someone who beta tested Tribes 2 and wrote a config file for SELinux. --- tqbf  05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per TheHammockDistrict's reasoning. Kingpomba (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If an article survives AfD once, I see no need to renominate it. Samboy (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of one afd has no bearing on the result of another (especially one with little contribution and a weak result). Articles can change and so can policy. It needs to qualiy under WP:BIO. -- neon white user page talk 03:08, 31 January 2008 (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.