Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Woodruff (2nd 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Woodruff (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)

Nomination was withdrawn due to a lack of interest of other users; an unregistered user has expressed interest in pursuing the deletion further. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [original nomination reason, withdrawn:] This white hat hacker has had a little bit of local news coverage, and there is a possibility that he may get more in the future, but otherwise it's a bit too soon for an article, and I'm not sure where I'd redirect to. It doesn't help that IPs are falling over themselves to remove content without citing actual policies, so an AfD sounds like the best answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The majority of references on this article link to throw away statements, with no backing or proof of the claims indicated. With claims such as these (especially regarding the November 2015 Paris attacks) there is no validation, so they should be rejected as an assertion of fact. There is little/no evidence of the individuals actual abilities as a hacker, at best the individual could be referred to as a conference entertainer or a basic confidence trickster/con artist. If this is the case, the individual is not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedic entry. Finally, It appears that this article has been created with the sole purpose of promoting the individual and their business, evidenced by the fact that the URL goes to a company webpage, and not a page relating to the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.95.108 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low-level hacker without adequate sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree with the nominator, all references are low quality linking to things that the individual states they have done, with no evidence that they have actually done it, nothing referenced stands up to much scrutiny. Also, Im not sure an Events section in a biography is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.67.39 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2016‎
• Delete I have to agree with the nominator, he's a bit of a helmet and this page only exists to make his business look legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.115.26 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 January 2016‎

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.