Deletion of StankDawg

Comment: The subject of this article clearly meets .  He has founded notable organizations within the technology scene, has written extensively in a variety of publications, has co-hosted a highly-regarded show for several years now, and is even viewed by the mainstream as an expert, by the fact that he has also appeared on television programs, from "talking head" pieces to a longer segment on the "Super Sharks" documentary. He also lectures widely on the subject of technology, and pulls in audiences of several hundred people at multiple major conferences, from HOPE to Def Con.  The subject also has a substantial fanbase, and his name is well-known enough that multiple people have been working on his bio, and it's had to be pared down to the "most notable" stuff. Caveat: I have met this individual and was invited to appear on his show a few times, but we have no financial relationship of any kind. I do, however, as one of the people within this field, affirm that StankDawg is clearly notable within it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Doesn't  declare that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Wouldn't this be covered under 2600: The Hacker Quarterly as a subject based printed magazine in which David contributed regularly and is recognized by his peers for doing so? Additionally in reference to notability based on Google search count and name recognition, I am having troubles using that as a credible method of giving notability. For example John Draper and Abe Lincoln have nearly the same search responses however it would be feasible to say that more people would consider the President of the United States far more notable than a accomplished phreak. Additionally lets take that one step down, you can bring yourself to Kevin Mitnick who not only is VERY notable in the field, even gained large conference coverage and TV coverage can only muster a simple 1 million results from Google search. Additionally the credibility of search response count and order for Google would also be in question. What I am getting at is what value of hits on google, if any, justifies notability. With regards to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in relation to his peers under the two organizations Binary Revolution and DDP. As a organization the Binary Revolution and DDP members have been published in notable magazines which in this case was mentioned to not be notable because no cross reference could be given. In this case I would recommend this issue be more of a lack of notable references vs. grounds for deletion. Additionally what grounds of notability do online publications have? What is classified as a online publication, can it be member contributed? This I think will ruffle some feathers on Wikipedia as topics of 'publication' on a website may be notable by current guidelines purely on subject matter and not value and understanding of content published. Correct me if I am wrong but is this or isn't this the reason Binary Revolution and DDP would be considered 'barely notable?' I would also like to request that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: This AfD seems to me to rest on two criteria (per my earlier comment): notability and verifiability. To take notability first: as an article that comes under , it looks like notability is being argued due to "demonstrable wide name recognition". ''StankDawg'' generates 953 ghits... but my own username generates over 850, and I'm utterly non-notable. Although ghits is imprecise as a measure, for someone whose identity is - even partially - tied to the web and the IT business, this is a very low hit count (and when one discounts the hits to StankDawg's sig in blogs and forum posts, and the various WP articles and mirrors, this drops even lower). There may well be name recognition amongst a niche community, but from what I could find this is neither "wide" or especially "demonstrable". Then we come to verifiability, which is established by evidence in reliable, independent secondary sources backing up every claim made in the article (preferably using inline citations). Again I saw almost no evidence of this; many of the sources, as tqbf has pointed out, only mention in passing the claims made... and this makes the bulk of the article unverifiable (and hence original research). This is very serious in a bio (see ); unsourced information can be removed at will, and quite rightly unverifiable bios do not stay on WP long
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP)