Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Seacord

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Seacord

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

The article does not include any references. I am unable to find any independent coverage of this subject. This subject does not appear to meet

Wikipedia:GNG. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Has an H-index of 20, with almost 3000 cites according to Google Scholar.198.58.168.40 (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how he passes notability guidelines. --IShadowed (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notified some editors who had voted on other AfD discussions for academics. I tried to get an even split of people who had voted for both deleting and keeping articles. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google pulled up an article of his with 200 citations. See also this interview from
InformIT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment InformIT is the publisher of the subject's book. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, informIT is a big company. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- likely meets
WP:AUTHOR; here's the Worldcat Identities profile: [1]. His Secure Coding in C++ is held by 405 libraries which is big for a specialised publication. I found a review: Review of "Secure Coding in C and C++ by Robert C. Seacord," Addison Wesley, 2006, paperback, ISBN 0-321-33572-4, 341 pp.. Appears to be an authority in the field. The book is published by Addison-Wesley so could be a standard textbook. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Unfortunately, two review articles available on the ACM Digital Library site are downloadable pdf files behind paywalls... so close! I have added a few citations that all amount to primary sources. I pass the citation baton to those with access to the reviews. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a published author on a topic that interests lots of people - and may alas interest even more over the next few years. The stuff apparently contributed by himself appears to have been removed in 2007. Sure it needs a more diverse balance of sources. Most Wikipedia entries do. But you're not going to build the scope of wikipedia in the way it's founders seem to have intended by deleting them all. Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with
WP:AUTHOR, being the sole author of at least 5 books (one source says 6, but I found 5) and co-author of multiple publications with 16 other security professionals, on topics related to secure coding. He has also had some impressive gigs on consultant panels, such as the 2016 Facebook audit. I confess, however, that his pr branding/puffery by NCC Group as "a renowned computer scientist and author, known as the 'father of secure coding' " was off-putting when I found only NCC Group websites use that terminology. The article also needs to be improved by inline citations, even if the only independent references are from reviews of his books. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, plenty of notable citations. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly a vanity page from the early days of WP. I'm refraining from !vote because this case is right on the border for the following reasons. On the plus side, he does have several co-authored papers with a few hundred citations and one of his books has been cited ~200 times (GS), but this is also a very high-citation area. On the minus side, his many books show marginal WorldCat holdings (low-to-mid hundreds) and we have deleted many computing/programmer BLPs having such book-holding stats, a recent cases being Janet Gregory. (I will politely disagree with my colleague K.e.coffman: IT is an enormously popular area and 400 holdings is not especially impressive. For reference, "well held" books in this area top 2K holdings, e.g. Christiansen's Perl book or Kernighan and Ritchie's C programmers book.) It's very likely that this article will be kept, based upon the above !votes. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes
WP:NBIO due to several notable ghits. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2018 (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.