- 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 redirect to HackMiami. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alexander Heid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.
- Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
- Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
- Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon ( talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon ( talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [1] [2] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze ( talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)- Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1] [2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
- Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
- The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage.
Infosecwiki (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Infosecwiki (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
AfD.
- You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
HackMiami. The sources in the article are
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and
WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by
Ednabrenze do not qualify. The
Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as
WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The
Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki ( talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Vote to Keep:The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.- The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets.
Infosecwiki (
talk)
16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, please read
WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki ( talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, please read
WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with
John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences.
Infosecwiki (
talk)
16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- In regards to above, i vote for
KeepInfosecwiki ( talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- In regards to above, i vote for
- Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with
John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences.
Infosecwiki (
talk)
16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment.
Infosecwiki, do you have a
WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.)
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The only substantial source is the Florida University piece. Everything else is name checks or brief mentions. It doesn't surprise me that a security expert keeps a low profile. But there isn't enough here for a WP article. Lamona ( talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to HackMiami as an ATD. I agree that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are insufficient per the reasons stated above (although I've started a discussion elsewhere regarding the soundness of SPS's rule against using expert SPSes in BLPs). I have been unable to find additional sources indicating notability. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 06:35, 28 July 2024 (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.