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 keep. Overall consensus here is that the subject meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. That said, the article would definitely benefit from incorporation of the sources presented herein into it. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Slade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure (self-)promotion/puff piece about an "information security consultant", almost exclusively referenced to the subject of the article himself. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If people delete the history of computing security you are asking for problems. Slade was active internationally before the US government had fancy jobs with fancy titles like "Homeland". In a discussion of his book Dictionary of Information Security, the article explains why Slade is an unusual person (quoted below, but I don't expect that Thomas will have any idea who these people are). I don't plan to argue with Thomas here or anywhere and won't be back (I'm on wikibreak).

"Virus Bulletin remarked about the unusual collection of five forewords, "that so many acknowledged experts are willing to contribute says something about the author's standing in the field"—the forewords were written by Fred Cohen, Jack Holleran, Peter G. Neumann, Harold Tipton and Gene Spafford."

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think WP:AUTHOR is a better notability guideline than WP:PROF in this case: despite the deletion sort listing under academics and educators, Slade's books seem aimed more at industry than academia. Regardless, it's not hard to find multiple published reviews of his works [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The nominator's claim that this is self-promotion appears to be false, easily seen to be false by looking at the article history, and an unfortunately common violation of WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:AUTHOR The vast majority of the links on this article are from the authors own self promotion pages. Not to mention his 'claim to fame' is writing a couple of computer security books. That's it. Amazon is full of authors who have written far more books, books that are in multiple languages, used around the world. His biggest claim to fame is doing a lot of reviews for other books. If this article stays in, it is a sign that Wikipedia is just as biased as many people claim it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.206.194 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again Susan Lesch, the creator of the article and an associate of the subject, is pushing to keep it. This is clearly a puff piece she created for someone she knows. And now she is trying to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.206.194 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. 173.64.206.194 is deluded in thinking I know Robert Slade. When I was in London I took a train a long way to meet David Harley, and would do that again if I ever had the chance. I've never met or corresponded with this subject except to secure OTRS rights for his photo. I resent your comments here and on the article talk page which are completely off topic. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Second comment from the same IP struck. Please only !vote once. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- multiple independent reviews of work are sufficient regardless of what notability guideline we're talking about. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (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.