675:. Please help in the great community effort to delete him. Please provide valid reasons in the above link. Because the wikipedia admins would delete it only if the reasons are valid, not if the number of headcount is more. Why I am particularly concerned about this is because we have better hackers than Ankit Fadia in this community. If there is a biography on Ankit Fadia, then we must put up biographies in Knowledge on some really good hackers who are present in this community. Moderator, may be I have violated some rule of the community. If so, I would request you to delete this thread. This only a request to all the members here because I thought this is a place where I can share this."
699:
knowledge and the things specified in his book are very old none of them is uptodate. He has also started a course with the named CEH by Ankit Fadia. Lots of ppl have fooled by the name CEH considering CEH form EC council and doing his certification but his certification dont have value in india also leave the rest of the world. So he is just fooling the newbies. He dont have any achivements in hacking field. Just media has created fame for him. So I recommend that this artical should be deleted.
73:
414:- I feel Ankit Fadia should be deleted. If deletion is out of question, at least he should be removed from the category of 'Indian Hackers'. He is not acknowledged as a hacker by the "Hackers Community". There are various reasons of this. He has never submitted a bugtraq or exploit. He is not a good programmer since the world has never seen an exploit or a hack written by Ankit himself.
535:
think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
240:. He is the most notable "hacker" in India and is accepted by the media as such. A search for "ankit fadia" gives 30000+ ghits. The article cites BBC which says the same thing. His first book "The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking" was a best-seller. A look at the history of the article sill show that this user has a strong bias against Ankit Fadia
698:
Ankit fadia is not acting professional security persion also. Leave the pint of he becomming a hacker. First of all I would like to add that i have read his book ethical hacking. Which is just copy paste from the web sites. He has pasted even hundres of pages as virus code. His book is not increasing
553:
I agree with most of the people out here that Ankit Fadia is a self proclaimed hacker. There is no proof that he has really worked in security field. Rather he uses tools developed by other eminent hackers without giving proper credits to them, which is against the hacker ethics. He also uses the
534:
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly
530:
Ankit Fadia cannot code, or at least, has never done so in public. The Second
Question cannot be verified or not. However, Fadia does not qualify on the last count. No one has called him a hacker, but himself, and the media. ESR adds a note in the howto on people such as Ankit
554:
tools which damage not only the security, but also the integrity of the computer system, which is also against the hacker ethics.About his books, he just provides tips and tricks to tweak a computer which are already documented and calls them hacks. -
335:
as a delicious foodstuff. You are missing the point (I feel deliberately); this AfD is not about your opinion on whether or not Ankit Fadia is a hacker, a script kiddy or a hyperintellgent shade of the colour blue. It's about whether or not he meets
216:
Ankit Fadia's biography must be deleted since he is a self proclaimed hacker and none of his claims have been verified. Some of his claims have been published by various media but never the less they aren't sufficient
664:
to delete this. I have a screenshot, but am not uploading it on wikipedia due to copyright problems. Anybody who wishes to see the shot can leave a message on my talk page. Here is the text of the message -
219:
A hacker is acknowledged as a hacker if and only if his name figures in various high-standard technology sites or technology books. On the contrary most real hackers consider Ankit Fadia as a script-kiddie.
610:- the argument above that everyone *knows* about him, but think he's a fraud, is *in itself* sufficient argument to keep the article. Whether he's a fraud or not, the fact that he is known — passes.
247:
of the article was written by a fan, but I managed to do a major cleanup of the article to what it was. This particular user has also cleaned-up a bit more removing some more unsourced facts
80:
571:
667:
Delete Ankit Fadia. I got this scrap from another community. Posting it here:- "The wikipedia article on Ankit Fadia has been marked for deletion.
417:
365:
312:
236:- The question here is not whether most of the other hackers in the world call him a script kiddie or something worse, but whether he passes
429:
377:
324:
686:
460:
400:
262:
579:
89:
196:
119:
516:(a hacker document by ESR, one of the first, and well reputed hackers) there are 3 things one must do to call himself a hacker
17:
209:
284:
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person
280:
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field
485:
105:
638:
he isn't. I make no claim to know whether Ankit Fadia is genuine or not, and have no idea what "script kiddy" means.
309:
Did you look at the contents of those articles. Most of those articles refuse to acknowledge Ankit Fadia as a hacker.
286:. The fact that "some people consider him XYZ" is irrelevant (though could, if verifiable, be added to the article).
439:- To the closing admin. The nominator, and the above 2 IPs who have voted to delete are likely the same person. See
484:, per above. And the person initiating this AfD seems to be on some sort of personal vendetta, and not reason. See
512:, Ankit Fadia is not recognised by any Notable Hacker or Security organisation, other than as a fraud. As Per the
78:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
712:
36:
711:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
425:
373:
320:
660:- A lot of IPs are coming here to vote delete. As mentioned by a user above, a message is being spread on
555:
186:
Ankit Fadia is a self-proclaimed hacker. None of his claims have ever been verified from reliable sources
151:
544:
489:
421:
369:
316:
690:
672:
648:
614:
602:
586:
558:
547:
504:
492:
476:
464:
404:
350:
304:
266:
225:
190:
56:
671:
has been marked for deletion. If you want his article to be deleted. Please express your views here:-
205:
682:
644:
456:
396:
346:
300:
258:
135:
109:
566:
None of the above has any bearing whatsoever upon whether someone should have a
Knowledge article.
94:
385:
222:
201:
187:
141:
72:
598:
562:
contribution moved to chronologically-appropriate place. Was placed before deletion nomination
473:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
50:
678:
639:
452:
392:
341:
295:
291:
254:
362:
His work has been recognized by the media only. Not by any notable security organization.
501:
384:
I have a strong feeling that this "vote" is by the nominator. See both the history of
611:
337:
275:
237:
583:
287:
169:
157:
125:
513:
104:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
627:
62:
525:
Has a well-established member of the hacker community ever called you a hacker?
332:
294:"furthers worthless careers", which alters his notability not one jot.
331:
That's not the point. Many newspaper articles refuse to acknowledge
673:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankit_Fadia
661:
522:
Do you identify with the goals and values of the hacker community?
705:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
212:) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
67:
243:, (assuming that all the IPs belong to the same person). The
668:
274:
per above. Has verifiable publications, appears to meet the
98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
574:. If you want to make an argument, please base it upon
340:. And please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end.
449:
446:
443:
440:
389:
251:
250:. But lately he has started removing the citations too
248:
244:
241:
540:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
715:). No further edits should be made to this page.
572:Knowledge:Criteria for inclusion of biographies
118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
88:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
46:Keep, Bad-faith nom strongly suspected.
7:
634:not being a genuine sheikh, in fact
669:http://en.wikipedia.org/Ankit_Fadia
24:
596:I suspect bad faith nomination.--
580:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines
71:
472:Per Aski great and Tonywalton.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
630:, who is notable even though
108:on the part of others and to
519:Do you speak code, fluently?
488:(Orkut account required). --
691:19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
649:19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
615:18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
603:17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
587:17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
559:17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
548:17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
505:16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
493:16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
477:14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
465:14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
405:13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
351:14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
305:13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
267:13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
226:12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
191:12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
57:19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
732:
708:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
150:; accounts blocked for
120:single-purpose accounts
90:policies and guidelines
197:single purpose account
500:Best-selling author.
420:comment was added by
368:comment was added by
315:comment was added by
102:by counting votes.
81:not a majority vote
578:criteria, and our
647:
563:
541:http://www.gja.in
539:-- Tejas Dinkar (
433:
412:Should be Deleted
381:
349:
328:
303:
213:
183:
182:
179:
106:assume good faith
723:
710:
643:
626:Indeed. Compare
601:
561:
415:
363:
345:
310:
299:
193:
177:
165:
149:
133:
114:
84:, but instead a
75:
68:
53:
34:
731:
730:
726:
725:
724:
722:
721:
720:
719:
713:deletion review
706:
597:
556:203.129.199.148
416:—The preceding
364:—The preceding
311:—The preceding
292:Nicholas Serota
167:
155:
139:
123:
110:sign your posts
66:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
729:
727:
718:
717:
701:
700:
693:
654:
653:
652:
651:
618:
617:
605:
591:
590:
589:
551:
528:
527:
526:
523:
520:
507:
495:
479:
467:
434:
409:
408:
407:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
317:202.54.176.51
269:
231:
230:
229:
181:
180:
76:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
728:
716:
714:
709:
703:
702:
697:
696:Strong Delete
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
674:
670:
663:
659:
656:
655:
650:
646:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
620:
619:
616:
613:
609:
606:
604:
600:
595:
592:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:criteria are
569:
565:
564:
560:
557:
552:
550:
549:
546:
545:59.92.133.167
542:
537:
536:
529:
524:
521:
518:
517:
515:
514:hacker how-to
511:
508:
506:
503:
499:
496:
494:
491:
490:220.225.53.35
487:
483:
480:
478:
475:
471:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:202.54.176.51
419:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
370:220.227.179.4
367:
361:
358:
352:
348:
343:
339:
334:
330:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
308:
307:
306:
302:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
249:
246:
245:first version
242:
239:
235:
232:
228:
227:
224:
220:
215:
214:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
192:
189:
185:
184:
175:
171:
163:
159:
153:
147:
143:
137:
131:
127:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
70:
69:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
707:
704:
695:
666:
657:
635:
631:
623:
607:
593:
575:
567:
538:
533:
532:
509:
497:
481:
474:Irongargoyle
469:
436:
411:
359:
283:
279:
271:
233:
221:
218:
195:
173:
161:
152:sockpuppetry
145:
134:; suspected
129:
115:
103:
99:
93:
85:
79:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
628:Fake Sheikh
608:Strong Keep
594:Speedy keep
482:Strong Keep
470:Strong Keep
386:User:Silina
288:Some people
272:Strong keep
234:Strong keep
194:— Possible
63:Ankit_Fadia
679:Aksi_great
640:Tonywalton
632:verifiably
453:Aksi_great
393:Aksi_great
342:Tonywalton
296:Tonywalton
255:Aksi_great
86:discussion
687:review me
502:JChap2007
461:review me
401:review me
290:consider
278:criteria
263:review me
217:evidence.
142:canvassed
136:canvassed
95:consensus
612:Wjhonson
430:contribs
418:unsigned
378:contribs
366:unsigned
333:Lutefisk
325:contribs
313:unsigned
210:contribs
174:username
168:{{subst:
162:username
156:{{subst:
146:username
140:{{subst:
130:username
124:{{subst:
658:Comment
636:because
624:Comment
584:Uncle G
498:Keep —
437:Comment
138:users:
510:Delete
360:Delete
338:WP:BIO
276:WP:BIO
238:WP:BIO
223:Silina
202:Silina
188:Silina
52:§hanel
662:Orkut
599:Andeh
576:those
531:Fadia
253:. -
116:Note:
16:<
683:talk
645:Talk
486:this
457:talk
451:. -
448:and
426:talk
397:talk
391:. -
388:and
374:talk
347:Talk
321:talk
301:Talk
282:and
259:talk
206:talk
568:Our
543:)
432:) .
380:) .
327:) .
170:csp
166:or
158:csm
126:spa
100:not
689:)
685:-
677:-
582:.
463:)
459:-
445:,
442:,
428:•
403:)
399:-
376:•
323:•
265:)
261:-
208:•
200::
176:}}
164:}}
154::
148:}}
132:}}
122::
48:--
681:(
642:|
455:(
424:(
395:(
372:(
344:|
319:(
298:|
257:(
204:(
178:.
172:|
160:|
144:|
128:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
