- Cyrus Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
restore Afcyrus 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) -->
Here is a point by point reason why I'm asking for the article, Cyrus Robinson, that was deleted to be re-established.[reply]
A former co-worker asked me if I minded her creating a Wikipedia article about me and my work/contribution to the field of digital forensics and the United States Air Force. I said no and agreed to help her out by beginning an article to highlight my early life/etc (because she did not yet have an editor account). This was my first article, and I did a very poor job (and the information was irrelevant to my contribution to digital forensics and the Air Force (b/c I was just starting off my background info). The article was tagged for speedy deletion, and so realizing that I had messed up by beginning an article on myself anyway I blanked the page. Later that evening the associate who wanted to create the article did so, and did a very professional and well cited job. Without ever viewing the content of the article, Shell deleted the article (she deletes about 3/minute, clearly not enough time to actually review the article and its sources. I along with other editors interested in the article tried reasoning with Shell on her discussion page, but she acted as though she was afraid to have her authority questioned. She claims to be an "inclusionist" and to practice "good faith", but a review of her discussion page shows that any time a person objects to her deletions without any review, she pretty much tells the user that she will not change her position. Please take the time to read the entire list of false reasonings for deletion and my rebuttal to each of them. Thanks.
Shell made FALSE and unfounded allegations against me. She accused me of having friends post on my behalf. First off, one is a former co-worker (not a friend) who ASKED ME if I minded her posting an article on me and my work (Imnotfamous). The other (Spartas) I do consider a friend, but he is also a computer programmer/computer specialist who understands the relevance of the article. The Biography starter guide said do not have a best friend post an article about you. He is not my best friend, and he did not post the article, but he did defend the article at his own discretion. I, along with Spartas and Imnotfamous, gave specific rationale as to why the article should not be deleted. She deleted it just for the sake of not wanting to be proven wrong which is evidenced by her lack of response to my rebuttals as well as failing to allowing time for argument against deletion on the talk page for the article.
She did NOT assume good faith.
I read the WP:BIO page and specifically addressed every complaint she listed. You addressed NONE of mine.
Her complaints and my responses:
Shell claims that I, the subject of an article written by another editor, am not considered notable.
- WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY (I only have to meet one of the following)of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.
The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm)
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source)
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls)
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors)
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)
Shell claims that military awards cannot be listed as awards in the military awards infobox.
On General T. Michael Moseley's WP article he has two awards listed, both military awards (you said mine were not eligible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Michael_Moseley . The same is true of General John Jumper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Jumper . According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_person_infobox the decorations should be "any notable awards or decorations the person received." Apparently, the editor for the article about me thought my listed awards were notable.
- Biography and well known:
Shell constantly refers to WP:BIO without detailing specific areas where the article failed to meet criteria for posting. However, Shell did tell me that I am not well known enough to have an article posted about me. I may not be famous, but I feel that I am at least notable in the field of digital forensics.
According to WP:NPF
(People who are relatively unknown)
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. It has been shown that while I may not be well known to the entire populous, I am at the very least, notable in my field.
Shell made the comment "A forum is not a credible biography." Shell obviously did not even check the links that I listed. I did not list a forum as my credible biography. The name of the company that organizes many DoD and government conferences is Technology Forums (it is not a forum-website). Further, Shell made the rather subjective (and uninformed) comment that having briefed at one conference of 700 attendees does not make me well known within my field. This is one of the and most well known conferences in the digital forensic community. That, along with the release of the DCCI Cyber Files which includes over 10 publications authored by myself to every attendee of the conference makes me both published and well known within the digital forensics community.
Shell made the comment that sources for the Cyrus Robinson article are self-published. I would refer Shell to Self-publishing which makes no mention of employers or academic institutions not being able to publish work used as a source. As a member of the USAF I am not capable of registering a website or paying for publication of my work-related studies. Almost every legitimate research publication is published by a government source or a source in academia. In those cases the studies are almost always authored by either faculty, students, or staff of those institutions. This is NOT self publication as is outlined at the bottom of WP:BIO. WP:BIO states that if someone purchases a website or pays to have a book published and self-labels as an "expert" is self-publication. For instance, Ron Rivest is a professor at MIT. He has two articles as bibliographical reference. Both are published through MIT Press (understandably). Self-publication is when a person has something published yourself. I never requested that the Air Force publish my work. They do so at their own discretion. Where would military personnel or academic sources publish other than through their respective institution?
Shell did not read articles before she delete them, as is evidenced by your serial deletion highlighted in your contributions site (despite her personal claim to be an "inclusionist". Shell sometimes deletes 3 per minute. Further, Shell does not allow ample time for discussion and debate on either the site's talk page or the debate discussion site. Finally, the limited time that is allowed for debate Shell did not read or take into consideration at all. This seems to be a case of someone with authority not accepting it when their authority or stance is questioned. Look up your discussion page. It is full of people with claims similar to mine that you just disregard. In the end, you always claim you are right...end of story.
Having drafted this point-by-point list of rebuttals full of sources and examples (from WP articles, policies, and guidelines), I ask that Cyrus Robinson be undeleted. I hope that the Wikipedia community is able to solve this unfair deletion with fairness and without elitism.Afcyrus 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- having spent 2+ years in the digital forensics community and owning a digital forensic company I can attest to the notability of SrA Cyrus Robinson and his contributions to digital forensics, and having read his valid arguments. I vote to overule the deletion.Kbert1 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Kbert1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am new to wikipedia, but I read the points that Afcyrus made, and I read all of the policies and links that he included. I vote to overrule the deletion. There is no reason this article should not be included per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.TheTourist314 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the person who originally requested SrA Robinson to begin an article that I could turn into an actual article. He, apparently, did a terrible job of it at first, but as a former co-worker I do know that SrA Robinson is not only well known in the digital forensic community, but his also that work is very notable. Read every comment that he makes in his argument along with the links and sources, and it's easy to see that this article definitely should be included. the admin did not take the time to read any arguments for keeping the website, so she did not correctl interpret the situation. I created the article because I am interested in his work as an editor and member of the digital forensic community. overrule deletionImnotfamous 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am one of the people that tried to contest the deletion on the debate page. This article is definitely relevant and the subject is also notable. As a Computer Scientist, I vote to overrule the deletion. Keep the article spartas 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original closing' — Keep deleted: I read the most recent version of the deleted article. As a member of the Military history project and main coordinator of the Marine Corps portal, though Cyrus Robinson laudably is a member of the U.S. military, he does not meet notability standards that have been established for military biographies. For example, as far as military awards — for USMC bios, we list awards in the infobox in order of precedence from Medal of Honor down to and including the Purple Heart. On the basis of awards alone, Medal of Honor recipients and Air Force Cross/Navy Cross/Distinguished Service Cross recipients have been included; on basis of rank alone, Brigadier General and above are often included. On an academic basis, publication of papers/presentation of papers alone do not establish sufficient notability. So, while it is not questioned whether the information is true, the notability expected of members of the military is not established. ERcheck (talk • contribs • count) 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- wow, long-winded, but it makes sense. this guy may need to edit his awards, and he might not be a big player in the military (he has to start somewhere, right?). He does seem notable in forensics for sure though. Do not delete, but edit military awards. only major awards should be included.Mil lonewolf 05:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above account began editing today, this is his/her third edit, all to DRV. Corvus cornix 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. Accomplishment is not notability, and the subject has brought forward few to no independent sources that could be used to establish it. The editor here, on the assumption that they are one and the same, doesn't seem to understand what "independent" or "reliable" means in this context, and wants the assumption of good faith to mean changing your mind. I see one hepped-up article editor/subject, and a process which proceeded properly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Original and noteworthy accomplishment in a specific field of study is notable.Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. ERcheck explains it well. >Radiant< 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No formal vote because I am involved, but comment: I voted against the AfD. I also reported Afcyrus and Imnotfamous as possible sockpuppets, because when the article written by Afcyrus was first deleted, a very similar article was created by Imnotfamous and the two seemed to be supporting one another. If I was wrong, that's fine, but I would like to point the following out, though.
- The "biography" provided for the subject at AfD is a very short blurb at technologyforums.com. Internet forums are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS or a credible biography per WP:BIO. His awards and honours are not notable, and to prove them he linked to an Excel spreadsheet which lists in addition dozens of other servicepersons' military records (which on further consideration I am very concerned about). He claims to have wide name recognition, but again he provided no independent reliable sources to assert that. That concerns me most of all, since I am worried that editors are being canvassed solely to vote to keep this article in Wikipedia. The article was recreated three times before final deletion and blanked once during the AfD; in the last iteration the subject was given titles such as "Cyrus the Great" and the article was laden with peacock words.
- My concern is that the subject is either the person who created the article or their friend, which brings up WP:COI worries as well as WP:SPAM. Most importantly, there are no secondary reliable sources given that are independent of the subject. Employers are not independent of the subject, as it is in their best interests to make their services, and by association their employees, look good. In this case his employer is also a primary source, not a secondary source. --Charlene 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read his post? The author is a former co-worker, not a friend. Assume good faith has been thrown out of the window?Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it fair that people allow Charlene to post AGAINST the policy for deletion review?! This is not the place for debate. The debate page was closed long before there was ample time to debate the deletion of the article. "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." (Per WP:DRV).
- keep article - overrule deletion. I work at DC3, and I can, as a civilian co-worker and member of the digital forensics community attest to the notability and importance of Cyrus' work in the field of digital forensics. I reviewed the article, and the awards seem trivial and silly (although I can attest for his actually having received them), but for the otherwise, the article seemed like a good and fair encyclopedic entry. I am appalled that the article on him is being attacked with such veracity, when clearly there are MANY less notable people with far less notable contributions who are included in the biographies section of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc3tech (talk • contribs) 17:41, July 18, 2007
- While I am new to the Wikipedia community, I am NOT a SPA. I have every intention of maintaining this account and posting regularly. AGF. Dc3tech 18:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Importance was asserted, there is no reason to suspect gaming or bad faith, and if questioned it should go to AfD. COI, though strongly discouraged, is not reason to delete. Repost of a speedy article is not by itself a reason for speedy. Speedy delete during an AfD is sometimes necessary, but the opinion of one admin should not be allowed to cut off a reasonable debate. DGG (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, he briefs people. Whoops. His bio at technoforums is not from a reliable source. He's a Senior Airman, not an NCO, not an officer. He is not notable. Claiming to be notable when it's obvious that you are not doesn't give you the right to avoid speedy deletion. And the repeated WP:COI violations, both here and at the AfD, show that Airman Robinson is letting his personal bias towards himself get in the way of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Corvus cornix 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when does rank indicate notability? He is not claiming notability based off of rank. His notability is established in his work and contribution to the field of digital forensics.Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list on AfD, with no early closing This is not an A7, notability is clealry asserted. The sockpuppetry issues have been dealt with above. whether the individual is actully notable enough for an article should be settled at a clean AfD. I take no position on that issue at this time, but there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. DES (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed this in my comments above. Claims of notability when the claims are patently false, do not deserve to be taken seriously. Speedy deletion of articles with ridiculous claims of notability are certainly valid. Would you require an AfD for every article that says "Janie is the prettiest girl in the world"? Corvus cornix 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I would not, as I have said on numerous occasions, particularly on WT:CSD where I have disscussed the proper scope of A7 speedies in multiple threads. I do not, however, consider the claims here to be even remotely on a par with that example, so this is IMO a false analogy. I might add that the very fact that multiple established editors consider these claims plausible enough to warrent an AfD is alone a good indication that an A7 speedy, whcih should be only for very clear cases, is not warrented here. The COI issues seem to me to be reasonably well dealt with, but even if they are not, COI is not normally a reason to delete, it is rather a reason to check and ensure that NPOV is adhered to. Note that while there was an AfD, it was closed so quickly that it is meaningless to speak of an AfD consensus (open only 3 hours) so this must be judged by the standards for an A7 speedy. DES (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion per my comments on the original AfD here. It should also be noted that Afcyrus is highly likely to be the subject of the article and, if memory serves, Imnotfamous recreated the article under this new title moments after the original was speedied.--Ispy1981 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, the AfD was not given a fair amount of time for debate. Also, your memory does not serve. The article was recreated, according to the time stamps, several hours after it was deleted without a fair AfD (and with reputable sources this time)Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion - the closer interpreted the AfD consensus correctly. Comment - At AfD, the only real question is whether there is enough reliable source material, independent of Cyrus Robinson, to create a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. The lack of enough independent reliable source material justified the delete. The nearly unanimous AfD delete reasoning and the behavior surrounding the AfD and the article justified speeding up the delete. Consensus brought this out and it was interpreted correctly by the AfD closer. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The afd was only open for 3 hours, hardly enough time for a consensus to be gathered.
- Since the AfD was only open for three hours and a few minutes, ther was not a manuingful "consensus" for the closer to have "interpreted". This must therefore be judged as an A7 speedy delted, and it does not stand on that basis. had the AfD been allowed to run full length, your point would have weight. DES (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If the subject is a former military person who separates from the military, yet the military still chooses to publish through their name, his reports is this third party? The only argument against my references are because I work for the AF. If this is the case, then hardly ANY academic or government sources can EVER be used in that they are almost always a result of previous staff or students contributions or authoring. Further, NO ONE has responded to ANY of the points I listed to the negative. For instance, why can other articles include publications published by their employer (I gave the example of an MIT professor).
Afcyrus 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The case of Ron Rivest is a poor example to use, because even with a casual google search you can find several articles about him from third-party sources - eg "CHIEF OF THE CODE-CRACKERS RONALD RIVEST ROUNDS UP THOUSANDS OF COMPUTERS TO MAKE WORLD A SAFER PLACE" from the Boston Globe, April 25, 1994, and there's many more articles like that one (he's also mentioned in books about crypto history, eg The Code Book by Simon Singh). I'd add in the information myself but I don't actually have access to that article. ColourBurst 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite his being found on a "casual google search" and despite how man third party articles he has on him, there should not be a different standard for articles that are allowed to be posted. In other words, if articles by one person's place of employment can be used as references, then the same should hold true for other entries. Also, you did not answer my question in your responseAfcyrus 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point I was making was that Rivest's bibliography doesn't satisfy the "independent reliable source" criteria but it is irrelevant because he satisfies other aspects of WP:PROF, and independent reliable sources can be found for him. It doesn't matter that they aren't in the article currently. However all of this is irrelevant for the purposes of this DRV since it was speedy deleted under A7 out of process. Relist and we can argue about the merits of technology forums and DCCI. Also, your bibliography contains material you wrote - and thus only establishes that you wrote those papers, but extending any conclusions other than that would be original research. ColourBurst 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Deletion Apparently this is a first contribution by a couple of editors; and I read both versions of the article. The first one was mostly un-sourced autobiographical information and left un-completed, and was thus listed on AFD. While listed on AFD, it was revised to include several reliable sources. A read-through of Shell's talk page shows an inexperienced user attempting to learn Wikipedia and an admin who did not address his/her points. (IE, I visited the techonologyforums site and Afcyrus is correct in asserting it is 'not' and internet forum, while Shell maintains that it is.) IMO, the article was deleted based on the opinion of one admin and without proper review; it should be restored. However, I would refer user Afcyrus to the Wikpedia guidelines in order to ensure that future articles are not listed on AFD. Community editor 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. A claim of notability even without proof is sufficient to avoid a speedy deletion. This article's claim is not obviously frivolous. Evouga 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Subject is not notable. Having briefed at some conference doesn't make one notable. The bio cited by the subject (something provided for every briefer) is merely a rote collection of non-notable facts. In fact, many of the other bios do contain notable achievements by other briefers at the conference. The subject's bio says he "works as an Electronic Forensics Engineer..."
Having a job does not make one notable. Zubdub 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- your argument might make sense if you had a CLUE as to the relevance of the actual content of the biography on wikipedia. the biography noted several publications that have had a significant impact on the field of digital forensics (such as changing the acceptable methods -community wide- for imaging damaged media). Having a bio in and of itself is not a significant achievement. The content of the work that you are ignorant concerning basically negates your argument. However, your ignorance, unfortunately, does not bar your right to vote.Afcyrus 04:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary, I do have a clue. The google cached version of your wikipedia article (dated Jul 16, 2007 22:41:57) reads as amateurish self-promotion written by someone with a greatly overinflated ego. It makes only a passing reference to that for which you claim to be so famous. Your listing of awards lists two instances of Airman of the Quarter in 2006. While laudable, these hardly make someone qualified for an encyclopedia article. Your highest praise seems to be "DoD Cyber Crime Center Performer of the Year", a very small crop for which to be the cream. Have you earned a community-wide award yet? Your article listed none. Do you have an MSM, even an Achievement Medal, to demonstrate Aif Force recognition of your greatness? Perhaps you will some day, but apparently not at the moment. Below, you add that you are one of only two such "engineers" in the USAF. Do you realize that further minimizes the noteworthiness of the DC3 awards about which your crow? You apparently out-performed exactly one other person in the Air Force. Perhaps you do good and innovative work. I hope so. But I suggest, Amn Robinson, that you reacquaint yourself with one particular core value of the Air Force (SERVICE BEFORE SELF) and get back to doing your job. Zubdub 02:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and there are only 2 Digital Forensics Engineers in the entire United States Air Force. It's not "just a job".Afcyrus 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that fact had been included in the original article I don't think anyone would have had any concerns--that is notable in and of itself and is incredibly verifiable. In fact, it is probably worth an article itself. In any event, I should point out to User:Zubdub that this is not the place to raise a notability argument--this is the place to discuss whether the AFD or speedy process was followed properly. Although you did express an opinion, which is good, that opinion should be founded on the basis of the DRV guidelines in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. User Afcyrus, if a user is less informed than you, please inform them gracefully. Community editor 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Deletion. This article appears to have been effectively speedy-deleted and protected from re-creation since the AFD was closed and the article deleted before obtaining consensus. User:DES explains this well, and I agree with his statement that this should be judged against the criteria for speedy deletion, in which case it is not a reasonable deletion. 70.21.12.107 23:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|