Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright's law


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wright's law

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. I can find no evidence that this term even exists. The sole source in the article doesn't provide any evidence, and despite the article creator's assertions that the term is notable, failure to find reliable sources to back that up claim otherwise. Time was given for more sources to be added, as per the talk page, but none have been forthcoming, so I have sent the article to AFD for discussion among the community.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. To start, this is based on a presentation by Wright at Toorcon 11, but what Wright actually said (To date, vendors haven't taken ZigBee security seriously due to the lack of attack tool availability. It's not going to get better until we have a practical attack surface.) is not only different, but furthermore so specific that one wouldn't call it a "law". (ZigBee is a suite of wireless protocols that has some serious security issues.) Further, although indeed some graduate students called a variant of this pronouncement "Wright's law" (see their presentation at ShmooCon 2011 at 00:09 seconds), for now this is a neologism for which there is no evidence it will catch on. Of course, there are plenty of unrelated things called "Wright's Law", some of which are clearly more notable. --Lambiam 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After doing some further...ahem...research on this I have found that this term came about at a conference for hackers, therefore I request that this article be speedily deleted as a neologism. I am unsure about removing the "willhackforsushi" link as I am unsure about promoting hacking sites/groups, someone else can tackle that bird.  What I AM sure of though, is that this article was created in the hope of "promoting" this term, which is why this AFD should be closed and the article deleted, the sooner the better.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 05:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What is not noted in the above comment is that this conference comes from ShmooCon, a highly respected industry conference on computer security, not a "hacker" conference in the sense of the word you are thinking of. Furthermore, the website "willhackforsushi" belongs to a respected computer security expert who does fully legal penetration testing and security research working for a respected company and also as an instructor for the SANS program. In summary, the "willhackforsushi" site does not promote "hacking sites/groups" in the sense you are thinking of, but instead only promotes informational discourse about legal security research. This term has been referred to many times, and this entry serves as a useful resource for people seeking to learn about this term. If you would like more citations to such uses, then request those, but do not try to remove an article due to a misunderstanding of the word "hacking". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.210.198 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 129.170.210.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment You are going to have to come up with better sources than YouTube vidoes. NBC?  CBS?  CNN?  BBC?  Any local news coverage, other than Dartmouth?  I looked at the ShmooCoon site and I from what I saw of the video, I believe it is a term made up by two college students (Rmspeers perhaps?) that is trying to use Wikipedia to get it to "catch on".  Sorry, but that is covered by neologism.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment ShmooCon is a much more reliable source than mainstream news. NYT, CNN, and other such news venues consistently misreport on technology issues. ShmooCoon is a well respected security conference and thus a good source such computer security related topics.Bx.s (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Bx.s (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - I see no coverage in reliable sources about this. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think people are a missing what a "reliable source" is. Let us look at ShmooCon, the source of this information, and look at the type of speakers there and their credentials. ShmooCon 2011, this past month, had Mudge of DARPA coming to speak to the assembled "hackers" about the need for them and their skills in the national defense. Two other past speakers included Prof. Avi Rubin of the electronic voting analysis fame (and book) from Johns Hopkins and Prof. Matt Blaze, respected UPenn researcher in computer security. I encourage anyone worried about "reliable sources" to look up these people as examples of the type of expertise ShmooCon brings. This article is about something within the security community -- do you really expect that CNN/BBC would cover such things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.210.198 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - In response to Whpq and the above comment, I suggest one reviews the following article (Moss appointment) to understand a little more about what a "hacker convention" brings to the table in terms of expertise and reliable sources. Here is one excerpt: "Jeff Moss, founder of the Black Hat and Defcon hacker and security conferences, was among 16 people sworn in on Friday to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. The HSAC members will provide recommendations and advice directly to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano." I feel that there is some misunderstanding among some of the commenters above on what reliable sources in the computer security discipline are. If the US government is looking for people running this type of convention to report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, then perhaps these conferences should be considered reliable sources. Rmspeers (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Valid question here - is this term covered BY NAME in-depth by any source? If not, then it passes WP:MADEUP.  Therefore the burden is on the article creator to come up with diffs that support the notability of the phrase.  That is the crux of this discussion.  Furthermore, I feel that the two keep !votes have a vested conflict of interest as they are both based at Dartmouth College.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This conference invited the world's leading security experts. Wikipedia can neither validate nor invalidate them. I'm not sure what kind of "source" you would consider appropriate, but this is the only source that should be considered reliable for the topic being discussed. It is silly to not accept a source because it isn't part of the popular media. At the very least, there should be an article on Joshua Wright which would include a section about his law as well as a report on his other contributions to security research. Anniid 03:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniid (talk • contribs)
 * Whether the person Joshua Wright meets our notability criteria and should be the topic of an article is an entirely different issue that is not under discussion here and has no immediate relevance to what is being discussed here. Regardless of the status and importance of ShmooCon, its founders, and so on, the fact remains that the term "Wright's law" is a neologism whose notability has not been demonstrated even remotely. Our General notability guideline states: ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." What we have here is only a primary source. This one primary source is most definitely not independent of the subject (as required for notability purposes): it is by the inventors of this neologism. Clearly, most of the discussants here advocating "Keep" are also not independent, as they are either these inventors or their friends at Dartmouth. --Lambiam 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Since the sentence that reads, "This was named Wright's law at ShmooCon 2011..." doesn't provide a reference that uses the term "Wright's Law", plus the fact that this article was allegedly created while ShmooCon 2011 was still in progress, there is no need to take this article seriously. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable secondary sources discuss this topic. WP:NEO. -Atmoz (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is missing is NOTABILITY! Nageh (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (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.