Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert David Steele

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. Bduke (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert David Steele

Robert David Steele (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I do not think that being the "second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence" (a claim which has been uncited since February 2007) makes Mr Steele automatically notable and the other positions he's held look even less notable. The article is not sourced or cited - all the links appear to be examples of Mr Steele's work rather than about him. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. His public service career isn't what makes him notable, it's his more recent career as a private expert. He's been profiled in the WaPo a couple of times, quoted about FISA, even testified before Congress. Most everything substantial and independent about him, though, is behind paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.ALR (talk)

08:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This man is notable because he is the source for the assertion that 95% of our military and diplomatic intelligence is already open knowledge. In other words, this implies that we are wasting 95% of our intelligence money, and that we should embed our truly sensitive intelligence in secret web sites that refer to open source URL's, thus allowing sensitive information to be twenty times more compressed. That is why he has been promulgating this fact in the intelligence community. It's part of the conundrum: he has the information, it's truly open, but if that free information is already part of an intelligence database (the already open 95%) then it is tarred with the 'secret brush'. But that is futile; it is like stamping a law of physics 'secret'. If it is a law of physics, then someone is going to discover it anyway, stamp or no stamp. The implication is that our intelligence community could be an order of magnitude more effective, if their efforts were refactored. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you add any reliable sources about him making that claim and it having a significant impact to the article? --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - In covert intelligence circles, he is famous for his promotion of Open Source Intelligence. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment can you please add a citation to the article which proves that? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Self-publisherd author - -see [1]DGG (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That in itself is not a reason for deletion. Some academics choose to self-publish since it can be easier and more lucrative. Some widely used textbooks get published this way. Samsara noadmin (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - OSI and related topics warrant openness, not exclusivity. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment How does that impact on the notability of this person? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to what others have said, he gets quoted as a Google critic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GzA9Xu_oEo (NB is an academic production, watch the credits). Samsara noadmin (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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.