Talk:Ralph Echemendia
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This page should not be speedy deleted because... edit
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it is created for a legitimate person and everything on the page is factual information, which can be supported by links and credible sources) --MargieSernik (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that a person exists does not make them worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. See: WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Specto73 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
References edit
There's a certain promotional tone to the article but I don't think it is insurmountable. Likewise I don't think it was fair to remove the reference list. Some of them may not meet WP:RS but others like Washington Exec probably do.
For the sake of giving this article a fair shake, here is the removed reverence list for individual evaluation and return to the article as appropriate:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
https://backchannel.com/the-hacking-of-hollywood-51c25895512f#.ln9ifvhdf - http://www.thewrap.com/bbc-site-online-attack-streaming-services-shut-down/ http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-celebrity-cybersecurity-20160601-snap-story.html http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/are-we-too-trusting-with-technology--509332035621 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153878636952501&set=a.165326572500.152451.715062500&type=1 http://www.communitynewspapers.com/brickell/once-a-teenage-hacker-he-now-is-a-consultant-for-films/ http://searchhealthit.techtarget.com/tip/Beyond-HIPAA-Next-generation-patient-data-security-threats https://tribecafilm.com/festival/events/tribeca-talks-secrecy-power http://www.wnyc.org/story/hacker-and-spy/ http://www.sloansummit2014.org/science-entertainment-exchange-presents-art-science/ http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/11/a-foundations-edge-in-science.html http://www.papermag.com/2014/03/sxsw_interactive_activity.php http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-hacking-cost-20141205-story.html http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/05/chilling-scenarios-keep-privacy-security-experts-night/ http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2004/06/64008 http://www.wehatemalware.com/hackers-issue-terror-threats-to-theaters-showing-the-interview/ https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/burning-studios-protect-films-internet-hackers-191550364.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/state-control-filmmakers-china-hackers-434874 http://thirdcertainty.com/spwnr/i-recognize-that-face-and-so-does-facebook/ http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2013/aug/02/q-ralph-ethical-hacker-echemendia-talks-snowden-fe/ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cyber-security-experts-question-north-802697? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/this-man-says-hollywood-d_b_7588194.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/theethicalhacker/hollywood/prweb11306460.htm http://gtra.org/off-the-record-ep-1-ralph-echemendia-the-ethical-hacker/
http://cocalecas.net/2015/05/hacker-cinematografic-entrevista-a-ralph-echemendia/ |
CrowCaw 17:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, that it wasn't right to remove all the sources. It definitely wasn't right for Specto73 to remove every source from the article, then BLPPROD it as not having sources and all tag it as unreferenced. I did add some of them back and more should go back. -- GB fan 17:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@GB fan Excuse me? I did not remove anything from the article, nor did I nominate it for BLPPROD. As you would know if you had actually read the edit history, all I did was nominate it for speedy deletion and add accurate tags. Regards, Specto73 (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Specto73 I am sorry, I made a mistake, I misread the history. It was actually Pppery that removed all the sources and tagged it for BLPPROD. Again, I am sorry for making that mistake. -- GB fan 18:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I failed to recognize those as sources in the first place. Pppery (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pppery, I would suggest you go back and read WP:BLPPROD. The policy says that it can only be added if there are no sources of any kind in any form that verifies any information in the article when the BLPPROD is added. If the only link that had been in that list was the link to his facebook page, it would have not been eligible for BLPPROD. -- GB fan 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I failed to recognize those as sources in the first place. Pppery (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest edit
Hi Editors, I thought my last update shored up a few of the facts and gave a bit more evidence to Echmendia's notability. Please highlight the areas you consider insubstantial, advertorial or not notable and I'll fix them. Thanks! Manc1234 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)