Deletion of Ryan Goldstein

Comment: It meets . It has been covered in many notable sources, such as fox news, the new york times, and msnbc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per : "...include '''only''' material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." - most of this information in this article is not relevant to the subject's notability. Also, "Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." This article does not satisfy these requirements. Goldstein is still known for only one thing. Walker was featured on 60 minutes, etc. There is not even a file photo for Goldstein in any articles about him, all of which are for only ONE thing, which provides for deletion of the article as per . The subject of this article is not notable according to the guidelines (thousands of people are charged with aiding and abetting to gain unauthorized access to a server, and they do not have a Wikipedia article). Much of this article is written without verifiable sources. Some of the sources that are included are dubious at best; for example, the article in "The Register" used as a reference relies solely on information provided by other (probably rival) hackers. Additionally, this article was written by an individual with a vested interest in disparaging the subject of the article. For these reasons, this article should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:NPF||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Please note that Blocky has not made any Special:Contributions/Blocky|contributions in nearly 3 years, and he is also an active, long-time myg0t member, a harassment group with an article disparaging Ryan on their front page. Another conflict of interest. This is essentially recruiting people from a community to try to keep an article here that clearly should not be based on the  policy. '''There is still only ONE person without a very clear conflict of interest who has voted to keep this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Violates . "Cover the event, not the person." - the event is Operation: Bot Roast, it's already covered. Special:Contributions/158.130.22.248|158.130.22.248
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Still goes against the  policy, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Special:Contributions/166.197.148.212|166.197.148.212
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Cypher55, In the vein of ssume_good_faith|assuming good faith I'd prefer not to start an argument. I would like to direct you, however, to my previous comment regarding the meaning of the phrase 'conflict of interest.' My affiliation with myg0t, if anything, gives me a more informed viewpoint on the issue than many Wikipedians who are new to this particular issue. At any rate, we seem to have digressed substantially from the topic at hand, namely which, if any, specific Wikipedia rules have been violated by this article. Please try to stay on topic. Special:Contributions/96.50.69.12|96.50.69.12
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: per , only got attention for one thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)