Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:16, 6 March 2006 editMetta Bubble (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,196 edits →[] (2nd Nomination): delete← Previous edit Revision as of 11:07, 6 March 2006 edit undoFreakofnurture (talk | contribs)36,981 edits removed a shitload of personal attacksNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
:''Second nomination. The prior nomination: ]'' :''Second nomination. The prior nomination: ]''
{{afdnewbies}} {{afdnewbies}}

: Broken AfD nom by anon, that was <s>incompletely</s> de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC) : Broken AfD nom by anon, that was <s>incompletely</s> de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

<b>References:<b><br /> <b>References:<b><br />
eWeek eWeek
Line 17: Line 15:
LA Times LA Times
The NYTimes article The NYTimes article


*'''KEEP'''- He is an influential member of the blogging community. He did excellent work breaking key stories such as the CNN X story in late 2005, working on the image recovery that helped prove it to be a technical glitch. He also does articles that help other bloggers, hundreds at times, write stories. -- ] 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC) *'''KEEP'''- He is an influential member of the blogging community. He did excellent work breaking key stories such as the CNN X story in late 2005, working on the image recovery that helped prove it to be a technical glitch. He also does articles that help other bloggers, hundreds at times, write stories. -- ] 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:Note: User's --] 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC) :Note: User's --] 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 29: Line 25:
: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''' This is a vanity page. Why does he have his own page? What has he done? What is he famous for?] 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' This is a vanity page. Why does he have his own page? What has he done? What is he famous for?] 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This local right-wing nutjob and homophobe should not be mentioned at wikipedia. -- ] 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' This local should not be mentioned at wikipedia. -- ] 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)
*'''Delete'''. I agree, this guy is in my department and he's a total dick. He doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. -- ] 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. I agree, this guy is in my department... ... doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. -- ] 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. This guy is a total moron.-- ] 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. -- ] 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This guy is the token right-wing reactionary on campus. While that makes him unique, it is because most people are not stupid enough to believe his politics. He shouldn't be given the time of day. -- ] 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' This guy is .... on campus. While that makes him unique, it is because most people believe his politics. He shouldn't be given the time of day. -- ] 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)
*<s>'''Speedy keep''' per previous AfD, possible attack nom (but ]), and 'cause anons don't generally get to nominate things for AfD. — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)</s> *<s>'''Speedy keep''' per previous AfD, possible attack nom (but ]), and 'cause anons don't generally get to nominate things for AfD. — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)</s>
:* '''Abstain''' — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :* '''Abstain''' — {{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 48: Line 44:
**'''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)
*'''Delete''' Not notable, cant verify references. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Not notable, cant verify references. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Oh he's notable, he's notable on campus for being a notorious racist and bigot. He features prominently in the ]'s decision to run the Danish cartoons. He should be run out of town not rewarded with a wikipedia article. -- ] 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Oh he's notable, he's notable on campus... He features prominently in the ]'s decision to run the Danish cartoons. He should... not rewarded with a wikipedia article. -- ] 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Yeah, in Ed Psy 430 a professor talked about and how his illustration of a donkey was meant to convey that all black people are jackasses. This guy is a joke and a horrible columnist. -- ] 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Yeah, in Ed Psy 430 a professor talked about and how his illustration of a donkey was meant to convey that all black people are jackasses... -- ] 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''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 . Peace. ] 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''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 . Peace. ] 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
====Comments==== ====Comments====

Revision as of 11:07, 6 March 2006

John Bambenek (2nd Nomination)

Second nomination. The prior nomination: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
Broken AfD nom by anon, that was incompletely de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

References:
eWeek PCWorld InfoWorld SearchSecurity Consumer Affairs C-Net State of Oregon his own college Seatlle Times LA Times The NYTimes article

  • KEEP- He is an influential member of the blogging community. He did excellent work breaking key stories such as the CNN X story in late 2005, working on the image recovery that helped prove it to be a technical glitch. He also does articles that help other bloggers, hundreds at times, write stories. -- RealTeen 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: User's first edit --Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: User's first edit --Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- He's a writer and highly respected IT professional that is very well-known in several technical and literary circles. There's no reason to delete him at all. There are far more articles that are much more deserving of deletion. Kit Jarrell 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Well known in technical/security circles ... definitely a keeper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trejrco (talk • contribs)
User's third edit. --Ragib 03:57, 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. -- 130.126.139.14 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: user's 6th edit, of which four relate to this article. -- DS1953 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
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 (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)
  • Delete per Superdosh. Jbamb 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. -- DS1953 17:01, 3 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. eaolson 03:03, 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. 67.171.73.202 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. -- 12.203.38.138 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, cant verify references. Mike (T C) 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 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)
  • Delete. 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)
  • 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)

Comments

  • Comment: 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)
    • Comment: 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)
      • Comment: 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)
        • 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. --Jbamb 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. --Ragib 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 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. -- Superdosh 17:07, 5 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.— 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)
      • 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? 67.171.73.202 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. -- 130.126.147.87 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..." -- RealTeen 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? 67.171.73.202 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. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. . -- 12.203.38.138 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. -- 12.203.38.138 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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)