Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ridpath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. On the advice of CU, the IPs that participated were given no weight and this was treated as a unanimous delete closure. Mkdwtalk 04:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ridpath[edit]

Mike Ridpath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the claims made, this person is not notable by our standards. I had cleaned this up some but a few editors re-added stuff without the benefit of knowing what WP:RS says. "References" added include such videos (?) as this ("All The Gold You Can Eat") and self-published books like this one (which doesn't even mention our subject, according to the "search inside" function). This person is so not-notable, and the article in previous versions (and its current version) so obviously unencyclopedic, that words really fail me--the article doesn't contain a single reference to a reliable source, and Google produces nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't find reliable sources, and the sources in the article mainly consist of name checks. In fact, I failed to find his name in some. LaMona (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing better and this article is still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Not sure if any of the above users are in information security but within the subculture of cypherpunks and hackers Ridpath is very well known and thats why the article was created in the first place. As he's listed as one of the top Social Engineers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) for years and was removed due to not having a wiki so we tried to pull together what we could find on the internet about him and he's mentioned in multiple books and videos. The books you search when looking at the article are citing the products he create called Liquid Chi Jablestech talk8:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) *Keep Both the documentary and the specific health book mentioned was trying to show he's not just a computer security lecturer, expert and social engineer. I know nothing of computer security communities he is or not part of but I do know that he's the keynote speaker for multiple Alchemy Conferences throughout the world and that he's well known within the esoteric communities i.e. rosicrucian and gnostic. Trying to locate source as I believe he's a bishop. From what I found online he's lecturer and member of multiple high IQ societies and given multiple information security presentations. Wikignome420 talk 9:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep The article meets the minimum requirements. It does have news articles, videos, and books citations. Did Google search "Mike Ridpath Social Engineering" however I don't think he's notable in anything else other then computer security and the article owner should clean this up. 24.22.134.18 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed Michael is noteable. Owner needs to rewrite it according to guidelines. 63.147.70.46 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is this user's only edit on WP. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

54.240.196.185 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC) *Comment I believe the article would be limiting to just one facet of who he is if we focused on the security expert and social engineer. He’s published in a number of journals and articles regarding leadership, business process, and manufacturing - for example, this ("YourWorkplace"). To more esoteric type things such as reviewer of the ("Alchemy Journal")[1]. He's created a bunch of different things we can find online and was trying to reference in the previous article such as his DVD series, Alchemy stuff, businesses etc. Also found multiple reference to High IQ involvement as an example and he’s an administrator for a scholar institute for High IQ Societies here. Wikignome420 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough here to show that Mike Ridpath is an expert in Social Engineering. The problem with the wiki that I'm realizing when searching for him is that he's done a lot but he doesn't seem noteworthy in anything but social engineering and computer security. I do understand the authors' intent but I believe a rewrite is needed with emphasis in this and nothing else is my opinion. 64.134.159.176 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) This is this editor's only edit on Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I don't think the article needs to be redone just needs the references in the right places. The man has many that could be used just locate the ones that are more appropriate for each part. I just saw one of his talks for the first time at Zoncon (modeled after BlueHat I believe) this year. He also created the CTF and ran the Lockpicking booth. Jack of many trades. I'm connected to him on Linkedin. 54.240.196.169 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Wikignome420 and Jablestech are  Confirmed socks of Johntame. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johntame. I haven't struck any votes, but I would give no weight to the votes and comments of the IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I hadn't realised there had been an SPI. I've struck keeps and comments except for that of Johntame. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.