Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Viega

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 no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Viega

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself. Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and Computing. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John is the most respected people in the software security space. Author of numerous books on the topic. I have just spent the afternoon researching and updating this. Will post next. 81.100.30.32 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Viega seems to have been one of the major influencers of computer security. WP:ACADEMIC applies here, as his work in the field is highly influential, whether or not he has been the subject of mutliple independent media stories. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1 as google scholar shows highly cited works here. At WP:ACADEMIC Specific criteria notes: Note 1 states:" the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't have an account, though I am the subject of the article.

I've been lucky enough to be in a position to do work that had impact on the industry, even if I haven't gone around promoting myself heavily (I am pretty private generally). Certainly, it was mostly a combination of dumb luck (right places, right times) and privilege. I'm definitely grateful to those looking to keep, and whoever has put this up and kept updating it over the years.

But, if you're looking for notable mentions in third-party press, two things do come to mind:

1) a popular science article about me playing Defcon Capture the Flag the hear before we hosted it (https://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2005-04/i-attended-hacker-conference-and-all-i-got-was-all-data-your-hard-drive/).

2) A bit of the software security stuff, along with a mention of the sale of my first startup to Fortify was mentioned when I was quoted in the Economist in the March 2008 Technology Quarterly (page 14).

Also, GCM does have its own page, and I think does merit it. For GCM mode, simply being the default cipher mode for TLS 1.3 (plus having hardware support in Intel and ARM architectures) has made it ubiquitous. The 2021 F5 Labs data (https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/threat-intelligence/the-2021-tls-telemetry-report) seems to indicate ~80% plus of all TLS connections globally were using it; I've anecdotally (from people at a major CDN) that it's above 90% now.

Also, NIST is looking to update the GCM standard. https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2023/proposal-to-revise-sp-800-38d

It's not going anywhere any time soon.

Either way, thanks for the consideration. It does feel good to be thought about, even if I don't make the cut! 68.129.210.33 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (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.