| Revision as of 21:33, 5 March 2006 editEaolson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,653 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:45, 5 March 2006 edit undo12.203.38.138 (talk) add'l notesNext edit → |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
****'''Comment''': 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. --] 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
****'''Comment''': 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. --] 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*****'''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. --] 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*****'''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. --] 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Delete.''' Agree with ]. I've previous argued against including John Bambenek on the ]. I repeat the here. |
|
*'''Delete.''' Agree with ]. I've previous argued against including John Bambenek on the ]. I repeat the here. |
|
|
|
|
:I don't think he's notable because: |
|
:I don't think he's notable because: |
|
:*his publications do not qualify him because (according to his ) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a ] (yet). |
|
:*his publications do not qualify him because (according to his ) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a ] (yet). |
|
:*his blog ] him because it's not notable enough (yet). |
|
:*his blog ] him because it's not notable enough (yet). |
|
:*and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify. |
|
:*and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify. |
|
|
|
|
:There are also all the arguments made in the first AfD. Notably, ] himself has done much of the on the page and the person that created the page is (maybe even Bambenek?). |
|
:There are also all the arguments made in the first AfD. Notably, ] himself has done much of the on the page and the person that created the page is (maybe even Bambenek?). |
|
|
|
|
:He has mentioned that he has been quoted in the New York Times as a security expert. , but there isn't enough notability to qualify his inclusion. |
|
:He has mentioned that he has been quoted in the New York Times as a security expert. , but there isn't enough notability to qualify his inclusion. |
|
|
|
|
:People have previously accused me of bias. See my . ] 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
:People have previously accused me of bias. See my . ] 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:*'''Comment''' With regards to the New York Times article, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
:*'''Comment''' With regards to the New York Times article, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Delete''' per Superdosh. ] is a valuable editor but I don't see anything that makes him notable by Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''Delete''' per Superdosh. ] is a valuable editor but I don't see anything that makes him notable by Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Speedy Keep'''. First, this is a renomination from less than 3 months ago, nothing has changed except perhaps even more notable has been achieved by the subject being in the New York Times and other newspapers. Lexis-Nexis showed he's been quoted also in the LA Times and he shows up in dozens of articles. The opinions above that we should make exceptions to what normally constitute notablity notwithstanding, it's clear he is notable. The irony of citing that his blog is ranking at or near the top 100 of 23 some odd million blogs is thick. Second, this was created by an anon and is clearly a bad faith nomination as noted above by someone who was barely familiar enough with the process to even start it correctly. This article stood on its own two feet a few months ago, nothing has changed. -- ] 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''Speedy Keep'''. First, this is a renomination from less than 3 months ago, nothing has changed except perhaps even more notable has been achieved by the subject being in the New York Times and other newspapers. Lexis-Nexis showed he's been quoted also in the LA Times and he shows up in dozens of articles. The opinions above that we should make exceptions to what normally constitute notablity notwithstanding, it's clear he is notable. The irony of citing that his blog is ranking at or near the top 100 of 23 some odd million blogs is thick. Second, this was created by an anon and is clearly a bad faith nomination as noted above by someone who was barely familiar enough with the process to even start it correctly. This article stood on its own two feet a few months ago, nothing has changed. -- ] 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
:Note: user's 6th edit, of which four relate to this article. -- ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
:Note: user's 6th edit, of which four relate to this article. -- ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Delete'''. Non-notable. VAnity page. I also suggest votes from users with very few edits be excluded. There seems to be some POV collusion going on here or even someone trying to game the system. Peace. ] 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''Delete'''. Non-notable. VAnity page. I also suggest votes from users with very few edits be excluded. There seems to be some POV collusion going on here or even someone trying to game the system. Peace. ] 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''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" 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 Misplaced Pages entries. ] 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''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" 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 Misplaced Pages entries. ] 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' I know this is one of my first drafts, but I have used and edited on Misplaced Pages 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.{{unsigned|RealTeen|}} |
|
*'''Comment''' I know this is one of my first drafts, but I have used and edited on Misplaced Pages 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.{{unsigned|RealTeen|}} |
|
***'''Note''': User's 5th edit (all 5 to this afd page). --] 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
***'''Note''': User's 5th edit (all 5 to this afd page). --] 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Delete''' 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. ] 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''Delete''' 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. ] 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
**'''Note'''. The above was this users 7th contribution, all related to removing John Bambenek from articles and all at the same time this morning. Possible sock puppet. -- ] 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
**'''Note'''. The above was this users 7th contribution, all related to removing John Bambenek from articles and all at the same time this morning. Possible sock puppet. -- ] 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
***'''Comment''' 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? ] 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
***'''Comment''' 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? ] 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
****'''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. -- ] 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
****'''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. -- ] 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
***'''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..." -- ] 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
***'''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..." -- ] 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' It should be noted that John has linked directly to this page from his blog 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? ] 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''Comment''' It should be noted that John has linked directly to this page from his blog 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? ] 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
**'''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. -- ] 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
**'''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. -- ] 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
**'''Note''' Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. . -- ] 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
**'''Note''' Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. . -- ] 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Further Note''' He's been reference in eWeek , PcWorld , InfoWorld , SearchSecurity , Consumer Affairs , C-Net , and Answers.com lists him as a notable information security professional. He was referenced by the State of Oregon for his knowledge , and his own college points out his notability . For his coverage on Hurricane Katrina, he was quoted in both the Seatlle Times , and the LA Times . 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. -- ] 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
*'''Meta-comment'''. This discussion is growing increasingly heated. I would just like to gently remind everyone to ] and to ]. Accusations of bias really don't help forward the discussion. ] 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
*'''Meta-comment'''. This discussion is growing increasingly heated. I would just like to gently remind everyone to ] and to ]. Accusations of bias really don't help forward the discussion. ] 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |