Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tron (hacker)

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 of the debate was speedy keep FCYTravis 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tron (hacker)

~~Non-notable. His death is sad. The fact that his family is apparently suing Wikipedia does not make him encyclopedic. FCYTravis 10:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)~~ Nomination wrongheaded and withdrawn. FCYTravis 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm abstaining at the moment, but I'd like to point out that someone with a decent command of the German language should see if there actually are credible newspaper accounts and whatnot -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep (edit: because of new information available) because no one has been served (known to have received a court order) or knows what specifically is happening -- That Guy, From That Show! 10:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two books were written about him, one of it is considered to be based on serious journalism. (ISBN 349960857X). see de:Diskussion: Tron (hacker) for details an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats for details (note that user "IAAL" is not a lawyer in this reality (by his own statement). -- 141.2.120.38 10:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely notable - Even before reading the Deutsch articles, I can vouch for this article being worth keeping. It needs to be expanded a lot more in order to reflect the fact that Boris had a fair amount of fame amongst his own sort of people, and that fame does not entirely rest on the recent inane court case supposedly being brought against the Wikimedia folk. Boris was a sort of celebrity for some of us years ago. If you want a place to begin researching him, you can start here. If you know how to access old phreaker 'zines, you can find a lot more data on the gent. So, no, please do not delete the article. → P.MacUidhir (t) 10:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --ST ○ 10:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if you can't read German you can tell from the sheer length of his article at de: that there's a lot to say about him. Angr (tɔk) 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Sheer length is not necessarily a judge of encyclopedicity. GameFAQs Message Boards is a mile long and a millimeter deep. No, I can't read German ;) FCYTravis 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Good point, that. :) However, the Deutsch version of his bio article does seem decently balanced in content. It would probably be worthwhile for someone to translate it for the English Wikipedia, at least to expand the content in our own version.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just computer translation can show enough... See German article in pseudo-English here DreamGuy 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask User:PeeCee for translation. --ST ○ 13:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly notable. There was coverage long before the alleged (do we have real proof of this?) legal threat. He's mentioned in several articles all over as a mysterious death. Don't let a likely bogus threat scare you into deleting the article. DreamGuy 11:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and ban the German judiciary for legal threats. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The english wikipedia really should not support the nonsense going on about the likewise article in the german wikipedia. The reasons behind all the mess are mostly unclear, most often fatuous economic reasons are cited: The parents make the ridiculous argumentation that keeping the name would harm their business, because they keep getting hassled by customers about the incident (yeah, really, after 7 years!). There is plenty of reason to believe that the parents are misled by one specific person who is involved very much into the case and especially the conspiracy theories and who simply can't retract without losing face and the sad rest of credibility left. -- Kju (de) 13:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Btw his name was widely known before wikipedia. Friends of him even done some kind of memoriam publication that was distributed over the ccc in there his name was clearly noted. helohe (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keeep He was a famous hacker even he may be never mentioned in the NYT. There are a lot of things never mentioned in mainstream media but interesting enough for a broad audience --Historiograf 14:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and accept blame for throwing fire onto this mess. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 16:09, 14 January 2006 (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.