Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ridpath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. On the advice of CU, the IPs that participated were given no weight and this was treated as a unanimous delete closure. Mkdwtalk 04:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ridpath (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)

Despite the claims made, this person is not notable by our standards. I had cleaned this up some but a few editors re-added stuff without the benefit of knowing what WP:RS says. "References" added include such videos (?) as this ("All The Gold You Can Eat") and self-published books like this one (which doesn't even mention our subject, according to the "search inside" function). This person is so not-notable, and the article in previous versions (and its current version) so obviously unencyclopedic, that words really fail me--the article doesn't contain a single reference to a reliable source, and Google produces nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Not sure if any of the above users are in information security but within the subculture of cypherpunks and hackers Ridpath is very well known and thats why the article was created in the first place. As he's listed as one of the top Social Engineers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) for years and was removed due to not having a wiki so we tried to pull together what we could find on the internet about him and he's mentioned in multiple books and videos. The books you search when looking at the article are citing the products he create called Liquid Chi Jablestech talk8:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) *Keep Both the documentary and the specific health book mentioned was trying to show he's not just a computer security lecturer, expert and social engineer. I know nothing of computer security communities he is or not part of but I do know that he's the keynote speaker for multiple Alchemy Conferences throughout the world and that he's well known within the esoteric communities i.e. rosicrucian and gnostic. Trying to locate source as I believe he's a bishop. From what I found online he's lecturer and member of multiple high IQ societies and given multiple information security presentations. Wikignome420 talk 9:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is this user's only edit on WP. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

54.240.196.185 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC) *Comment I believe the article would be limiting to just one facet of who he is if we focused on the security expert and social engineer. He’s published in a number of journals and articles regarding leadership, business process, and manufacturing - for example, this ("YourWorkplace"). To more esoteric type things such as reviewer of the ("Alchemy Journal")[1]. He's created a bunch of different things we can find online and was trying to reference in the previous article such as his DVD series, Alchemy stuff, businesses etc. Also found multiple reference to High IQ involvement as an example and he’s an administrator for a scholar institute for High IQ Societies here. Wikignome420 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (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.