Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. There has been too much meatpuppeteering here that I can in good faith count the votes from very new users. From the established users, we have a unanimous delete consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek (2nd Nomination)

[edit]
Second nomination. The prior nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek

Broken AfD nom by anon,[1] that was incompletely de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References: :eWeek [2] PCWorld [3] InfoWorld [4] SearchSecurity [5] Consumer Affairs [6] C-Net [7] State of Oregon [8] his own college [9] Seatlle Times [10] LA Times [11] The NYTimes article [12]
I don't think he's notable because:
  • his publications do not qualify him because (according to his resume) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a notable academic (yet).
  • his blog does not qualify him because it's not notable enough [14] (yet).
  • and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify.
There are also all the arguments made in the first AfD. Notably, John Bambenek himself has done much of the early editing on the page and the person that created the page is someone from Champaign, IL (maybe even Bambenek?).
He has mentioned that he has been quoted in the New York Times as a security expert. Granted, but there isn't enough notability to qualify his inclusion.
People have previously accused me of bias. See my counter. Superdosh 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Superdosh. Jbamb is a valuable editor but I don't see anything that makes him notable by Wikipedia standards. Even if the incredible undocumented claim that during the first year after his graduation from college in 2001 "he led several development teams and became the resident expert in information security and Sun Microsystems products" at Ernst & Young (now Capgemini, which employs over 61,000 people) is true, that doesn't make him notable. This is a personal vanity article and should be deleted. Whether the new users are sock puppets or not is irrelevant; the article cannot stand on its own feet. -- DS1953 talk 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. He is a columnist in a local college newspaper for which the editor-in-chief didn't even warrant an article until a recent scandal. His blog receives few comments, suggesting few readers. The first publication for which he is listed as a "contributor" [15] has roughly a hundred similar contributors. Of the first six other contributors from that list (William Ahern, Jared Allison, Dan Astoorian, Corey Badeaux, Carmen Banks, and Marion Bates), none have Wikipedia entries. eaolson 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen His most notable merits for inclusion are his work in information security. To put his accomplishments in perspective, an average PhD graduate in computer science may write dozens of papers for peer-reviewed conferences and journals over their lifetime and have hundreds of references to their work from other scholarly works (a measure of impact). John's publications do not appear to be peer-reviewed, do not appear to be scholarly in nature, and do not appear to have a high level of impact. So his accomplishments are less than that of the average PhD graduate and unless half the PhD graduates should have entries, I don't see why John should have one. 67.171.73.202 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen Not notable, cant verify references. Mike (T C) 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen. Oh he's notable, he's notable on campus... He features prominently in the Daily Illini's decision to run the Danish cartoons. He should... not rewarded with a wikipedia article. -- 130.126.130.101 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed][reply]
    User's 3rd edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen. Yeah, in Ed Psy 430 a professor talked about this column and how his illustration of a donkey was meant to convey that all black people are jackasses... -- 130.126.147.166 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed][reply]
    User's only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. and STOP ANONS FROM DELETING VOTES!!! Non-notable. Vanity page. I've had to re-add my vote here after an anon deleted a whole bunch of votes and discussion here. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. In the interest of disclosure, it should be noted that I've removed several personal attacks from this page [16]. — Mar. 6, '06 [11:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete. per Superdosh and others. -Will Beback 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am satified with the notability here. -- Alpha269 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This editor's account was about 10 hours old at the time of this edit. -- DS1953 talk 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

[edit]
  • Kommentar: I'll not vote for or against this, but why do all these users crop up to vote keep (their first, or among 2/3 edits), whenever this is put on an afd? A m:checkuser seems to be needed to root out the hoard of socks. No, I'm not accusing anyone, but the three votes I marked are quite suspect (and the accounts created after the afd listing are invalid anyway). Thanks. --Ragib 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar: One could say the same about new/anon users creating AFD's in the first place. I encourage a checkuser just to end any suspicion on this matter that there is a vast John Bambenek sockpuppet conspiracy as I tire of the charge. -- Jbamb 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar: No, John, I wasn't accusing you. The whole thing with anon users' doing fly-by tagging, afd listing is quite frustrating. This afd listing, in the first place, was inappropriately made by the anon. There is also the possiblity of "straw man sockpuppets". So, whoever ends up closing this afd, needs to disregard the single-edit user's, voting either for or against the afd, as clearly most of these users are socks. Thanks. --Ragib 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kommentar: If you aren't accusing me then who exactly does these supposed socks belong to? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this crap, I'm not calling you out per se, I just want a sysop to do the math here and put the issue to bed so people stop accusing me of running this article. That's all. --Jbamb 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment:Again, I am *not* accusing you in any way. (replied in your talk page on that). The 3 users I marked are so clearly made up, that I somewhat think those votes are here for the opposite affect ... to make "Keep" votes look dubious. I don't have any reason to say you are running this article. The afd was inappropriately listed by an anon (from Champaign... surprise!!!), and many of the pro/against votes are motivated by personal agenda rather than the merit of the article/subject. Afd's should be taken objectively rather than personal issues. The afd listing itself shows a personal bias rather than a good faith nomination in part of the anon. --Ragib 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regards to the New York Times article, here is another New York Times front page article on computer security (specifically wi-fi security) from March 5, 2006. They've quoted security experts from router-maker Belkin (Johnathan Bettino), tomshardware.com (Humphrey Cheung), ABI Research (Mike Wolf) and Symantec (David Cole). Not a single one of these people has a Wikipedia page (nor does anyone at all mentioned in the article). This is just to point out the fallacious argument that being in a front page article in the New York Times implies notability. -- Superdosh 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar I know this is one of my first drafts, but I have used and edited on Wikipedia anonymously for quite a while. I actually didn't know registration had any benefits until recently. If you need to see some things I have done, I edited some parts of the entry on the ACLU, under the ACLU's Critics, and I did some editing on Scott Fuller, who is someone I talk to on a regular basis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealTeen (talk • contribs)
      • Note: User's 5th edit (all 5 to this afd page). --Ragib 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar You are welcome to refute my argument. The reality is that John Bambenek is not a famous person (like Ludacris, Roger Ebert, etc) nor does he have the accomplishments of an olympic medalist (Bonnie Blair) to warrant being listed along with those famous people in the Champaign-Urbana Metro entry. He is not famous in Champaign-Urbana nor nationally. The fact that he has a couple fans running around adding his names to lists he isn't qualified for is pathetic. Again, I challenge you to refute my argument. What is his major contribution? What peer-reviewed conferences and journals contain this contribution? How does this contribution make him any more notable than the hundreds of other PhDs from UIUC with vastly superior vitaes full of peer-reviewed publications? 67.171.73.202 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Your argument needs no refutation because you are an anon attacker. However, plenty of people who aren't olympic medalists have bios. It's clear from your comments you have an axe to grind. The original anon poster was upset at a column he wrote last week, even Adrian recognized this is an attack afd. If he has enough visibility that whenever he writes a controversial column people try to delete his bio, it's clear he has more influence than people are giving him credit for. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To quote John from the discussion page- "It amuses me that this nomination was filed the very same week I was in a front page article in the New York Times. On second thought, maybe that does mean I have no credibility..." -- RealTeen 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar It should be noted that John has linked directly to this page from his blog [17] and that the vote may consequentially be biased by participation from his readership. If you look at timestamps, it appears most of the "keeps" come within a few hours after his blog post. Will everyone with a blog and a 10 person fan club get a wikipedia page? 67.171.73.202 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. The above has been contributed by a user who has no contributions to wikipedia except to remove this article. Another anon participant with an attack afd. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. [18]. -- 12.203.38.138 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Note He's been reference in eWeek [19], PcWorld [20], InfoWorld [21], SearchSecurity [22], Consumer Affairs [23], C-Net [24], and Answers.com lists him as a notable information security professional. He was referenced by the State of Oregon for his knowledge [25], and his own college points out his notability [26]. For his coverage on Hurricane Katrina, he was quoted in both the Seatlle Times [27], and the LA Times [28]. The NYTimes article was reproduced in dozens of papers around the world. Laslty, according to Lexis-Nexis, about a dozen of his articles were syndicated across the wire service. The threshold for notability seems much higher in this case then in many many others. -- 12.203.38.138 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that answers.com is a wikipedia mirror? Anyway, this AfD is so much full of anon's on both sides, I think it would be necessary to discard votes from anons, as well as accounts created after this AfD listing, or with less than 100 edits. --Ragib 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN Numbers- Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04), Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292; Paperback; 2001-07-01) were the only two I could find with an ISBN search. As reference, he isn't listed as editor but contributor for those books. You can view a couple of them at [29]. As reference, you can find copies of the books online to verify he is listed as a contributor for them here and here. -- 12.203.38.138 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the most acrominous AfD I've seen in a long time. It includes sysops deleting user comments [30]. It demonstrates a complete lack of following the process. There is a crtieria for Second Nominations, this doesn't meet it. This was started by an anon unfamiliar with wikipedia because they didn't even add the AfD right, this never made the WP:PROD process, and no discussion or debate was attempted before dumping this 2nd nom in. After seeing this level of sockpuppetry, I decided to take a look in depth on this one. There seems to be two criteria of notability that is claimed here. First is as an information security professional, second is as a blogger/columnist.
In general, this user has over [31] 277 unique Google mentions, almost a hundred more than the last time and more than most articles that do get to stay. He is mentioned in dozens of news articles which is amazingly dismissed out of hand. Since when does being in a front page article in the New York Times not mean anything? In many cases, that is ipso facto proof of notability and that ends the discussion. Why are the criteria being thrown out just to vote delete?
In information security, his material that he has authored does certainly seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria of 5,000 or more readers. Some mention that he doesn't have much in peer review journals, but any research that is notable enough for the New York Times certainly bypasses that threshold. Not all research in journals makes it into the mainstream media, research that does, especially if it makes the New York Times and international papers, most certainly is notable by any definition of that word. If 5000 people is the criteria, why is a readership in the millions being discarded out of hand?
In blogging, his comments have appeared in the LA Times and Seattle Times. Any blogger mentioned in the mainstream media is pretty much considered notable. In fact Wikipedia:Notability (websites) states that multiple non-trivial media mentions is enough to establish notability. That threshold has been more than crossed here. His blog is ranked #104 in the Truth Laid Bear system out of 51,578 blogs (top .2%) [32]. Technorati ranks him at 1008/29.9 Million [33] (top .003%). He is an apparent right-winger that has enough visibility that he was mentioned and criticized by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [34]. His political opponents, the Democratic Party, see him as notable enough to respond to. His paper, an independent and self-financed corporation has a circulation of 20,000 [35]. He is a featured writer on Blogcritics and stoptheaclu.com which both have readerships above 50,000 a day. The 5000 person threshold is more than crossed here.
It seems that some of the votes here are not considerations of the content but those who want to vote no for the sake of voting no. This process has been horribly abused in this case and will likely, instead of reach any consensus, land this in Deletion Review. The criteria for notability has been more than crossed by any objective standard. This AfD shouldn't even be considered because it is a sham 2nd nom, independent of that, the 1st AfD came to the right conclusion. The criteria and process exists to prevent circuses like this from taking place that shamefully include sysops deleting supporting comments. That process and the criteria should be followed. This article should stay. -- 130.126.139.14 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statistics of fake vs genuine contributions
Intended as an aid to the closing admin. This isn't a vote, so the simple numbers are not the point; nevertheless:

  • Keep
    • Definitely genuine: 0
    • Fake or dubious: 7
  • Löschen
    • Definitely genuine: 6
    • Fake or dubious: 9

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey! *Insert sound of trout hitting Mel's head* What 'cha think you're doing? And that was a really lame disclaimer, too. "Nevertheless" it is interesting to see very new contributors taking part in both sides of a debate.
brenneman{T}{L} 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[V]ery new contributors"? Euphemism of the week? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More like euphemism of the weak, although that's redunadant and repetitive. But if we assume this is more than one person and think of these as potential "converts" I'll wear the shame of using insipid language.
    brenneman{T}{L} 03:14, 7 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Bambenek_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1143732485"