Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Hammond (3rd 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Hammond

This is the third time this article has been nominated for deletion. Despite his conviction on hacking charges, this is a non-notable subject, with which Wikipedia should not be concerned. Moreover, there are many NPOV points contained within the article as has been repeatedly pointed out. Archaios 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The article's already deleted..? Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Oh wait, it only appears that way here because the template links it here. Delete then.
• Comment - I just realized the template skewed my previous comment up as well. Oh well, you fixed it. --Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I think. It was deleted in both the other AfDs. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep after looking at the content. Four seperate sources is plenty for verifiability, and two major newspapers do it for notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - minor mentions even in a major newspaper does not necessarily warrant a WP article/bio. More to the point, there are several assertions within the article which are disputable at best, not referenced, and the details regarding his arrest and trial have been around since the initial creation of this article - leading me to believe it is not at all relevant to Wikipedia or his notability. Archaios 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not being referenced is grounds for cleanup. Only the references not existing is grounds for deletion, and they obviously exist. And I don't call a front page article a "minor mention", even if it is in a fringe magazine. For me, three non-trivial mentions establishes notability, and he definitely has those. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - in that case, every criminal in the media history of the world should be covered be Wikipedia. I believe the pertinence of the newspaper articles relates to his ideology, rather than his cause or account per se -- indeed, their disputations of the so-called hacktivist philosophy seems to indicate this, in which case I believe that such a subject may deserve a mention in Hacktivism, or Anarchism, but not merit their own biographical article. I must mention that I am personally linked to this case, and I have great misgivings regarding its content _and_ notability. The front-page article existed in the previous incarnation, which was deleted; it appears that such fringe magazines do not constitute notability in this instance. Archaios 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - As noted, the "front page" article is in a local "fringe" paper. The Reader is a self-described "features" rag. Not a newspaper like the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun Times. Also, if someone media-whores enough, does that automatically make them notable? If the other "hacker" of recent vintage from Chicago, William Konopka (a guy who was busted for blowing up power stations and amassing stores cyanide, and actually made front page in the Chicago news rags) doesn't meet the requirements for Wikipedia notability, neither does this guy. TheElocutioner
      • I don't know what you're trying to prove with your "If this other guy isn't notable, neither is he" argument. Maybe I think the other guy is notable? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep More than enough for nobility. Somitho 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Somitho, assuming of course that he meant "notability" rather than what he actually said. Mr. Hammond isn't noble in any sense of the word.  :p Rogue 9 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article is notable as proven by the links listed on the page and the many other 3rd party sources out there. TSO1D 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I am completely in agreement with all arguments for keep noted noted above. Even more, this article expands some key matters that the HTS revision article touches briefly touches on. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple, non-trivial references in independent sources satisfies the primary criterion of WP:N. Ccscott 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and WikifyAlf photoman 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI created this article in it's current incarnation and am happy to see significant support to keep. I have been a WP editor for a year. I have never engaged in edit wars. I have had nothing to do with any unpleasantness in this matter. I created this article last week after going to hackthissite.org to inquire about testing port scanning software. It was there I first learned about Mr. Hammond. I thought his story was interesting and sought more information on WP. I was surprised to find no article as it seemed a inherently notable topic. So I wrote a stubbish one. I made no reference to any earlier versions, as I did not know they existed. It is highly unlikely that this article bears much in common with any deleted article. I have sourced the article appropriately for a stub and feel the article should not be deleted. I don't mean to make it difficult, and I understand that an article about hackers and parody protesters could be draw people who might be difficult. But the fact remains it is notable. The recent plea/sentencing also adds material. I understand that JH is young, and an article about criminal activity that has not been proven/admitted is problematic. With the plea entered this is no longer the case. I do not have a negative opinion of JH. If anything I mildly admire him. I have no animosity toward his victims. I believe in debate and free speech and believe this topic raises interesting pointsEdivorce 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I realize this has already been deleted in the past-and that my suggestion to keep it will in all likelihood be disregarded-but I feel it necessary to reiterate my point-of-view, which is that Hammond-especially with his recent conviction-is a notable subject. He has been arrested repeatedly-in a very public manner covered by local news sources-and his criminal behavior has been covered nationally by a number of well-known journalists, bloggers and political activists, e.g. Michelle Malkin. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I addressed the issue of The Blade article on the general talk page. Please do not re-add it before reading my comments. Thank you. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep from plumber in chicgao —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andynorgate (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2006.

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.