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. There is consensus that the available sources do not provide sufficient significant coverage of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Grugq[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provided are passing mentions; in depth refs are lacking. This stub is useful for promoting the subject’s blog, but not much else. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. He did an entire interview with an international media outlet such as Vice. Vice is a WP:RS and they call him an "InfoSec celebrity". I also argue that the mention in the Forbes article is more than a passion mention, they tell multiple facts about his life and business. Bruce Schneier endorses his commentary. In other articles, he is being cited as a source too. In summary, he passes WP:N. (ping @Largoplazo:) Dwaro (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you pinged me. All I did was capitalize his name, give his full name (with a source), and remove an external link. Also, pinging doesn't work if you add the ping after you've already saved your edit with your signature. I learned about the AFD because the article's on my watchlist.

To be clear: Being a source (with the exception of a scholarly work abundantly cited by others) doesn't contribute to notability. So, for example, we completely discount even numerous sources that say "Beanie Beemus of Sharknado Corporation said, '...'" and nothing more about Beanie Beemus when assessing the notability of Beanie Beemus. Consider that if I'm a journalist, and I sometimes write about cryptocurrencies, and I've been put in touch with someone who's knowledgeable about cryptocurrencies, I may consult with that person time and time again for info I need for the articles I'm writing. That means I know them, and that they're happy to keep commenting for the record because it puts their name out there in print (free publicity), not that they're notable.

Also, interviews are generally considered to be people talking about themselves, not independent sources. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stacking up a bunch of snippet coverage like "the security researcher known as The Grugq tweeted on Tuesday, reacting to the news." is like presenting shards of broken glass in lieu of a complete sheet and can not be the basis of a significant coverage. This person does not appear to pass GNG or person's notability test for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google "grugq" -"makuch sits down with " -"makuch sat down with" (to exclude the same content on dozens of hits returned by Google otherwise, referring to one interview of the Grucq by someone named Makuch) and pickings are slim. And, of the sources given in the article, only one refers to him more than in passing and, even then, it's to discuss his comments, not him. Largoplazo (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I lean towards convinced by Largoplazo and Graywalls that the subject lacks comprehensive coverage from multiple WP:RS. My brief search yield similar result. Unless more coverage could be found, I think the subject have not yet justify a WP:N. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:46, 23 March 2020 (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.