Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Smith (virus writer)

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. It's WP:BLP1E. You're free to merge the content about the virus and its significance, but the person is only notable to the event of the virus's spreading. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the article is about the virus. Thus, this violates the biography of living persons policy. slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Smith (virus writer)

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E. Almost all of the info is already in Melissa (computer worm). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, person notable for one event only. The article already exists at Melissa (computer worm), so there really is no reason for a separate article for the author. Jd027 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and JD027 --Moloch09 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself doesn't have an AfD notice. I can't remember how to do it without relying on Twinkle as a crutch, and my crutch apparently broke since the last time I used it :) --13.12.254.95 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:afd1}}; added to article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Recognizance (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not sure I agree with the "person notable for one event only" reason. Smith could be considered notable as 1) the author of a notable virus; 2) causing the most financial damage from a virus to date; 3) one of the first to be prosecuted for writing a virus; 4) and working for the FBI as an undercover agent. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first three could certainly be included in the virus article itself. In the fourth, many people work as sources for the FBI. This doesn't make all of them notable. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that he is a notable source for the FBI, and can be referenced as such, i.e The register. And, with reference to 2 and 3, that the crime is a well-documented historic event. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for the virus and for the results of it. One invention is sufficient, if it is sufficiently important--in a positive or negative sense. DGG (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable for X and for the results of it" undermines the entire premise of WP:BLP1E. Perhaps we need a section titled Articles about people notable only for one event and the results of that event, heh... Also, I would argue that the Melissa virus does not constitute an invention. Unless it was the first mass mailer and/or first virus to use Microsoft Word macros, which is not my impression... "Mass mailer" is an invention, but "a particular mass mailer" is not, no more than this comment is an invention.

WP:HEY: If someone can successfully expand the part of the article dealing with Smith's later work with the feds, using reliable sources and establishing the notability of said later work, there would be a much stronger case for a "keep" here. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (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.