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]
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]

Comments[edit]

  • 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]
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]

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:

--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]

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.
Category