Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eaolson (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 4 March 2006 (refactor. extra linebreak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

John Bambenek (2nd Nomination)

Second nomination. The prior nomination: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek

Delete. This is a vanity page. Why does he have his own page? What has he done? What is he famous for?12.221.103.5 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Speedy keep per previous AfD, possible attack nom (but WP:AGF), and 'cause anons don't generally get to nominate things for AfD. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain — User:Adrian/zap2.js 06:46, 3 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. -- RealTeen 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's first edit --Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- It seems to me that Bambenek has been in the news, and is a member of the media.--KenderTWA 23:55, 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)

• 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)

• Delete. Agree with 12.221.103.5. I've previous argued against including John Bambenek on the List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people. I repeat the argument here.

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)

• 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)

• 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. Metta Bubble 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)