Talk:John Graham-Cumming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Deletion

The deletion claims:

Proposed deletion. You removed the PROD tag. Thanks! That's how the system is supposed to work. :)

1. Subject is NN security researcher

Subject of article makes no claim to be security researcher; description is 'programmer'

Ok, s/security researcher/programmer. Argument stands.

Fair enough

2. Subject used own SPA account

Subject appears to have made some edits to own article, but extensive edits made by others.

The subject himself and 1 anonymous IP editor, which has only ever edited this page and may in fact be the author, account for 80%+ of the content on the page. The "extensive" edits from others are mechanical --- cats, AWB, bot, etc.

Ah yes, good point about the anonymous IPs

3. No references

Article has extensive references to sources

No, the article has extensive inline links to commercial websites. This article cites not one reliable source. On Wikipedia, notability (a requirement for articles) is established with significant reliable independent sources. --- tqbf 14:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So I've now read the reliable source stuff, looks like you are right and this article needs some other good links.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.128.31.9 (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The system works!

The anonymous editor was right to strip off the PROD tag; I got set off when I went to add the references section to the article, found that the article had no real references, and then saw that it was WP:AUTO. But a quick news search shows that an AfD would fail here, since the subject has been covered for antispam work pretty extensively (for instance, at BBC).

This article badly needs real references, but I'm not on a crusade to delete it.

--- tqbf 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUTO Tag

The primary cleanup that this tag is asking for is for content about the subject that isn't itself notable be removed.

--- tqbf 14:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)