Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benne de Weger

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 delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benne de Weger[edit]

not notable professor

Delete Not notable; only reference to obscure cryptography subject (though I have interest myself, I wouldn't claim it makes the person notable). If author feels it's worthy, should suffice to mention on the relevant cryptography page. Akihabara 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, something there yet totally unsourced and lacking references Alf photoman 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.win.tue.nl/~bdeweger/PublicationsBenneDeWeger.pdf contains an extensive list of publications by de Weger. This is making me think that he qualifies based soley on the "Professor Test." I'd say we should keep researching before making a choice for AfD. --Kevin Murray 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

676 G-hits for a math professor seems pretty good, especially with a unique name. --Kevin Murray 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve per above comments by me --Kevin Murray 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole fact here belongs in X.509; if someone wants to write a real article about his work in number theory later, fine; but this won't help. (Such an article would have to make clear how his work is more than the average professor's.; which it may be.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable professor. Some of his publications might be notable, but the article at present fails {{db-bio}} except for a X.509 which is not particularly notable. The article has been around for a while, and it seems likely that, if there were something notable about him, it would have been added to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. He is only notable for one thing, but I think that is enough that we should expand on this man who shaped the world, if only in a small way. The MD5 collision that he and fellow academics Arjen Lenstra and Xiaoyun Wang proved is monumental to the world of cryptography (those https sessions with the bank that we trust) and computer science in general. To illustrate the impact of this, MD5 is still one of the most widely used hash algorithms, almost a year after this first minor challenge to its fidelity, because it survived so long that many thought it was impenetrable. I acknowledge that those who proved that MD4 had faults do not have articles, but would like to point out that MD4 was never widely used, as MD5 came out less than a year after MD4, by the same creator (Ron Rivest), so naturally most standards and software quickly upgraded. In summary, academics who break notable cryptography algorithms inadvertently shape our society; software that used the old algorithms are suddenly forced to adopt the new ones in order to keep client confidence. Please note that X.509 is extremely notable ... it is the foundation of "https". John Vandenberg 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second author of a few papers, the best of which gets 10 cites. Both MD5 and X.509 precede the 2005 finding by more than a decade, and the Lenstra-de Weger 2005 paper gets all of three cites. "shaped the world, if only in a small way" is silly. Every dissertation is required to expand the known scientific universe, and most do it in very small way. ~ trialsanderrors 00:15, 26 January 2007 (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.