Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter O'Brien

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, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter O'Brien

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

Is this an elaborate hoax? There are no reliable third-party sources referenced here, all seem to originate from "O'Brien" himself. Any third-party coverage I can find either takes him at his word, or is a discussion of whether any of the claims made are real. Therefore the notability of this individual cannot be verified, and should, at best, be re-directed to Scorpion (TV series). Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. A lot of unsubstantiated claims that have been completey debunked. Even the Irish Company Records Office has no record of O'Brien's supposed business. In Ireland, if you are doing business in any name other than your own, you have to have a Registered Business Name. A search of the Official Irish CRO Irish companies and business names search shows no such business. The claims of hacking NASA seem to be based on the work of others. Cliff Stoll wrote about a NASA hack in The_Cuckoo's_Egg and this was a real hack of NASA. O'Brien's claim to have hacked NASA looking for images of the Space Shuttle plans is also suspect because such plans were probably in a file format linked to the CAD software used to design the various components. It also seems quite bogus because at the time, downloading any such image or file would have taken hours, if not days on a dial-up line with a then available modem. In the US, 9600 Baud modems were available but 2400 Baud would have been more common. The quality of the telephone system in Ireland, especically rural Ireland, was poor. The claim about Homeland Security has also been debunked because it did not exist when O'Brien claimed to have hacked NASA. The claims about Churchill and Einstein getting the same kind of visa have also been shown to be rubbish as the particular visa did not exist in the 1940s. The IQ issue is completely discredited. The part about a SWAT team arresting this character in Ireland is actually lifted from the opening of the movie Hackers. The claims of identifying the Boston Bombers are probably rather offensive to the people who actually did this work. Many of O'Brien's claims seem to be based on the Hacker mythos and the hacks and work of others. Jmccormac (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things you talk about are in the article. You're wanting to delete a well-sourced article about an individual that clearly meets WP:GNG based on things not in the article? Wut?AbuRuud (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he established his business in 1988 is not confirmed by the Irish Company Records Office. Jmccormac (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Not confirmed" is not "denied." Further, that smacks of WP:ORIGINAL. Fast Company, on the other hand, clearly stated that Scorpion was created in 1988.[1] Now they later printed a story that questioned some of his biography, but they never mentioned or retracted that. So a reliable source with editorial oversight says it was 1988. Seems legit to me. Here's another RS that repeats it.[2]AbuRuud (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a a rehashed press release based on unreliable sources. When it comes to businesses being established in Ireland, the Irish Companies Registration Office is the authority. It is where business names and companies are registered. That local newspaper article merely rehashes O'Brien's claim to have established his business in 1988. The Irish CRO says that he did not then he did not. The Irish CRO is the ultimate authority on this and it is somewhat more authoritative than O'Brien's self-made claim. And Fasttocreate did not check to see if O'Brien's claims on the establishment date of his business were true. Jmccormac (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof of Fast Company's lack of fact-checking? If we can prove that RSes were in error without WP:OR, we should get rid of the 1988 date. But an issue with a single fact doesn't mean delete or take away WP:GNG. AfD is to see if articles should be deleted; it's not for fact checking. AbuRuud (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish CRO was probably not checked and O'Brien's claims were initially accepted on face value by Fasttocreate. Once they started to be questioned by people in the industry, there was a second article which seemed to address some of the rather dubious claims. Most US journalists would not have a working knowledge of Irish business legislation and requirements. Jmccormac (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the page should be deleted based on your assumptions about reliable sources alone?AbuRuud (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find information regarding Fast Company's lack of fact checking here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is one of the silliest AFDs I've seen. The page has references to new articles from at least 15 separate publications. Some of the articles date back to the late 1980s. Quite a long time for a hoax to be perpetrated. I'm not sure what axe the nominator has to grind with O'Brien, but as someone who has spent significant amounts of time researching the subject and editing the page, it's clear that O'Brien is 100% real. Can every single one of his claims be independently verified? No. But many publications that are WP:RELIABLE have written about O'Brien. Easily meets WP:GNG. AbuRuud (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources back up O'Brien's claims about IQ, hacking or business establishment. Jmccormac (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not make any claims about O'Brien's IQ. Only that he claims to have a high IQ, which is supported by Fast Company, the Wall Street Journal, and the Irish Times. The article doesn't mention his hacking of anything. It says he was a part of an Information Olympiad, which is supported by contemporary news articles. There is some debate as to when his business was established, but its existence is talked about in TONs of articles. Saying newspapers aren't reliable because you feel like they aren't isn't a reason to delete a page.AbuRuud (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an incorrect fact is published in a newspaper, the act of publishing it does not make it a correct fact. Jmccormac (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find the WP:OR exception to WP:RS. Can you point it out?AbuRuud (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish CRO is a reliable source. O'Brien's self-made (effectively self-published) and unsubstantiated claim is not, even if it is repeated by what may appear to be reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you posted to the Irish CRO specifically disclaims responsibility for errors in the database. The fact Scorpion Computer Services is not listed in the database isn't proof positive the either a:) SCS did not exist; or b.) that the article should be deleted. The database isn't comprehensive by its own ommission, and using it to refute what is stated in RSes–whether you think its parroting O'Brien or not–is the very definition of WP:OR. By the way, can you prove that the editors at the respective newspapers did no fact checking? Absent your attempt at original research, of course. AbuRuud (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who claimed to have researched the topic. Doesn't that constitute WP:OR? If someone is doing business in a name other than their own, they have to, by law, file this business name with the Irish CRO. You do seem to be quite invested in this article. Jmccormac (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should re-read WP:OR. And I'm invested in Wikipedia and making sure pages aren't irresponsibly deleted.AbuRuud (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this aside, what's he actually notable for? Having a high IQ, and competing in a maths tournament (and even these are disputed) are not achievements enough for inclusion. I'm fairly convinced he fails all points at WP:Notability (people). The controversy surrounding his claims is actually more notable than he is as an individual. A couple of paragraphs at Scorpion (TV series) discussing this controversy would cover it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly meets WP:GNG. So there's that. Further, a fictionalized version of his life has been adapted by a major television network. That show is now going into its second season. What's the difference between him and, say, Richard Phillips (merchant mariner)? I look forward to voting keep on your presumably upcoming AfD of that page, too. Walter O'Brien is clearly notable for Wikipedia whether or not Reddit, Attrition.org, and random blogs like him. AbuRuud (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources on the article are first-hand accounts. Any of the claims from the Scorpion Computer Services and Langford & Carmichael websites have to be discounted, as does his Linkedin profile(!) Once you get that out of the way, aside from a few supposed unverifiable newspaper accounts, he is only written about in terms of the television programme. Therefore any discussion of him and his spurious claims should be left to the TV series page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to consider your comparison with Captain Phillips, look at the quality of the sources at Richard Phillips (merchant mariner). The events surrounding Phillips are verifiable from sources independent of the subject and he is obviously not a deluded Walter Mitty character like O'Brien. Any of the articles about O'Brien have himself at the source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating primary sources (which can be used to verify information on the page) with third-party sources, which prove notability. And no matter the amount of huffing and puffing you do, The Irish Times, IrishCentral, Fast Company, The Wall Street Journal, Daily Mail, and a host of local papers have written about him. WP:GNG. AbuRuud (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All with O'Brien himself at the heart of any "facts". Incidentally, some of the citations to some of these articles are questionable in themselves. Here's the Daily Mail archive for 14 August 2014. No mention of this, added by you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Catherine Fegan doesn't seem to have published an article since 2012. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tilting at windmills. Much like the Irish CRO database, the fact that Catherine Fegan doesn't have articles attributed to her in 2014 by Journalisted doesn't mean the article doesn't exist. Nor does it not being in the Daily Mail's online archive. Factiva, on the other hand, clearly has the article. Or are they a part of the grand consipracy? [3] AbuRuud (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of knowledge of Irish business regulations is no defence for including O'Brien's self-published claim. It is quite clear that the Irish CRO has no record of O'Brien's claimed business. If one is doing business in Ireland with a business name other than one's given name, then the name has to be registered with the Irish CRO. Technically it is needed for tax and banking purposes too. Most of the "sources" that you have added are from press release recycling Puffery sites rather than from trustworthy and reliable sources. They all repeat the same self-published claims without any verification and as such are not reliable sources. Perhaps you are unaware that the Attrition.org link on O'Brien is in its charlatan section. Perhaps that's a valid link that should be included in the article. I agree with Rob Sinden about O'Brien being the source of the Puffery and as such the article should be deleted/redirected. Jmccormac (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To get more input, I've notified all users who have been active on the article's talk page in the past, and added something to the Scorpion (TV series) talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This personal easily passes the WP:GNG. There has been articles written about him in reliable sources, some of them questioning his claims. He is notable even if a lot of his life is a hoax, based on coverage. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on notable hoaxes. WP:Hoaxes and Category:Impostors. Dream Focus 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be kept, do you agree the focus of the article should be shifted a bit to allow for greater discussion of the debunking of the O'Brien myth which seems to have had at least as much coverage as O'Brien's own claims, rather than present his lies as fact? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to use AfD as leverage to negotiate content? -- GreenC 14:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the intention. I'm in favour of reducing him to a couple of paragrahs on the Scorpion (TV series) page. I nominated it because the way it is now, it presents too many of his lies as fact, and once you strip out these there's no substance and not worth salvaging. However, if the article shifts focus to give as much weight to the coverage of O'Brien's fantasist tendencies, I can see some merit in keeping it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent too much time researching this individual and your assertion that most of the article is lies doesn't hold up. I agree he has told lies but he mixes truth with lies. All of the unverifiable extreme claims about his IQ, wealth and accomplishments are not in the article. The rest of it is a banal career. The problem with the debunking sources is they are largely unreliable and/or fall afoul of BLP, Wikipedia is not a hit piece to debunk people we happen to not like. -- GreenC 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know it seems like I keep wavering, but it's that banal career that seems non-notable to me. An unremarkable person, apart from his wild claims in the press. Hence why I think a couple of paragraphs at the TV series website would be enough to do him justice. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, people with banal careers can be notable. And "banal" is just my opinion. See also banality of evil (crossing the Godwin line now..) -- GreenC 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. -- GreenC 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Hoax or reality, clearly he's gotten coverage up the wazoo. You don't nominate an article for deletion because you want to change the way it should be written. --GRuban (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a problem with AbuRuud effectively taking ownership of the article and deleting elements that question or highlight the discrepancies in O'Brien's Puffery. The fact that the Irish CRO has no record of his business name is a rather glaring fact because it is a legal requirement in Ireland. Between various versions of O'Brien's supposed NASA hack story, his age changes. The personal computer type changes from being an Amstrad 464 to a Commodore 64. There are very serious issues about the claimed hack (DOHS operating before it was established and in Ireland. Technological aspects of his claims don't stand up. (Line quality on the Irish telephone system at the time. ARPAnet access. Modems. File types. Printers. ) The problem with hacking and such exploits is that for every genuine hacker, there are thousands more who would like to take the credit. The problem with most of the press coverage is that it is by people who can best be considered churnalists. They just recycle press releases and take parts of other articles in an attempt to provide content. Genuine investigative journalists tend to have higher standards and do tend to verify facts. There has been some good journalism on O'Brien's claims and it shot many of them down in flames. Jmccormac (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If basing a career on lies made someone not notable, we'd have to delete almost all of our articles about politicians. --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another speedy keep The filer wants to know if the article is an elaborate hoax. I was wondering the same about this deletion request. I find it a no-brainer that this article is valid and relevant. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 30 January 2015 (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.