Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Bambenek

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 was delete as a persistantly non-notable individual, and a persistant abuse of process to keep the article about oneself. The only individual here calling for retention is the author and very likely Mr. Babenek himself. This also falls under db-repost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nomination; I have no opinion. There have been revert wars with speedy tagging, and it seems this article has suffered from WP:COI issues in the past. User:DGG declined a speedy request yesterday, but someone has tried again today, so the only sensible action is to submit the article for community review. Shalom ^Hello 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme speedy delete and salt!!!!!, recreation of this article is bordering on disruption. Corvus cornix 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sheer strength of the above opinion indicates unobjectivity. The ones who shout the loudest about deletions often do so with an intent for suppression, not a better encyclopedia. -- Archibald16 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-notable egotist is trying to use Wikipedia to make himself famous, and will not stop. That's what makes me want "suppression", just because the ego needs to be taken down. Corvus cornix 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the violation of WP:FAITH and sheer animosity of this comment prove my point. -- Archibald16 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first speedy was bad faith, but fine. The second speedy was obviously bad faith. The third was vandalism. Not sure there is much to this except ill-will towards the subject. Apparently he pissed off a bunch of techheads at the University of Illinois over iPhones apparently [1].-- Archibald16 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Archibald16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G4 and why the heck wasn't this salted? Failed DRV about a zillion times, appears to be created by a sock, or at least a SPA. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt; I couldn't guess why (that particular person), but this is obviously repeated vandalism. — Coren ^(talk) 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is article creation vandalism? Aren't we stretching that definition a bit? -- Archibald16 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's vandalism when an article is re-created over and over and over again after having been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI I tried to steer clear of this in my nomination statement per WP:DNFT, but whoever closes this discussion needs to know that Archibald16 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet as reported here. Shalom ^Hello 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yeah, I saw that and commented on it... they should also know that no evidence was made to substantiate that and after examination none was found. It was a bad faith nomination. The sheer hatred that John Bambenek causes among wikipedians that the storm an AFD and vote more in the first 5 minutes of the AFD than most AFD's have in 5 days speaks to notability. Of course, it helps that he's well-circulated and been on the radio and tv many times as well. -- Archibald16 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. Notable. On Wikipedia, as a repeat offender and Grand Master 3rd dan of Vanispamcruftisement. I'm all for good faith, but come on! — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt. Not a notable person in any means. Kill the article so it doesn't come back. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NeutralSpeedy delete What's going on? It would be nice if someone could link the article's deletion reviews and such so that the arguments raised there could be taken under advisement. If all the claims of mainstream media appearances and article publications are true, I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. There must be something to this, to have attracted such an abrupt storm of comments. If it was speedied, I don't see its recreation as vandalistic. If it was Afd'd why not just Db-repost? Deranged bulbasaur 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Corvus cornix 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=== Notability, Books, Articles, and some such === Header Disabled Corpx 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Because it was requested, here is a brief synopsis of where he's written, what he's published and what media outlets deal with him. He's been on the Daily Show (as indicated by the image) as well as ABCNEWS. He's also been on several talk radio shows as an interviewed guest, though I don't know where online I can point people to for verification.

I've just checked Lexis-Nexis and there are over 300 articles written by him readily available and searchable from various syndiacted wire services.

Quick Web Links:

• The NYTimes article [10] (this was a front page article he was in)
• Washington Post [11]
• eWeek [12]
• PCWorld [13]
• InfoWorld [14]
• SearchSecurity [15]
• Consumer Affairs [16]
• C-Net [17]
• State of Oregon [18]
• his own college [19]
• Seatlle Times [20]
• LA Times [21]

ISBNs to edited collections he's contributed to:

Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat, Series: Advances in Information Security , Vol. 51, Lee, Wenke; Wang, Cliff; Dagon, David (Eds.) ISBN: 978-0-387-68766-7 Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04) Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292 -- Archibald16 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point to which of these links he is the primary focus of the article. Corvus cornix 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you change your vote if I could anyway? This article is exclusively about him [22]. The other articles are mainly citing him as an expert, which is valid for notability. And again, Lexis has about 300 articles by him. -- Archibald16 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Citing him as an expert does not grant notability. See WP:NOTE. That other article is about "State scrutinizes employees' test times". I dont think the article is about him. Corpx 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx, read the article... he's the employee they're talking about, he's the one in the video attached to the article. -- Archibald16 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a state employee who refuses to sign a document is not enough to grant notability to a person. Corpx 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing the defintions again... you wanted an article with him as the subject, this is such an article... and it's not that he didn't sign the form, it's that he also filed a lawsuit, but again, this isn't the only thing we're talking about here... the sum total of all of this is notability. -- Archibald16 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete those articles have to be about him, not mention him or quote his thoughts about a subject. See WP:NOTE for more infoCorpx 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE Criteria: Significant, reliable, independent sources. I mentioned ABC News... here are four sites off the top of my head, all very popular, that are not only independent but adverserial, and they have coverage of bambenek. It meets all four notability requirements in WP:NOTE.

Independent sources covering John Bambenek:

ScienceBlogs [23]

Feministing [24]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [25]

Archpundit [26]

-- Archibald16 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give us links to reliable sources, not search engine results. And what is your connection to Bambenek? Corvus cornix 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you google lists so you can see the number of times those sites link to him. The DCCC is hardly a blog. And for political commentary, you'd imagine most of the hits would come from blogs. My connection is that I read his stuff and I'm a fan. -- CCCC

Those are all blogs - Blogs dont count as reliable sources Corpx 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read WP:RS... blogs aren't immediately discounted, especially when they are very prominent and respected blogs. -- Archibald16 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs. Also, the Democratic Campaign Committee blurb seems to just be an elaborate way of linking his blog. Deranged bulbasaur 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DCCC was criticizing something he wrote, it only makes sense they'd link to it. -- Archibald16 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notability: : More Notability criteria, specifically:

1) The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. (In this case, many media outlets treat him that way, and he's published as such, including giving presentations to DHS on computer security).

Other criteria could nominally apply also. -- Archibald16 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Let's just cut to the chase... I'm finding arguments to prove notability, people are finding excuses to call it not-notable. Is there a point to us wasting our time debating? I mean, you've all voted, is this a foregone conclusions that this article needs to die and no debate will matter? If so, just let me know so I can stop wasting time? -- Archibald16 04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is not a vote. I'm reviewing my position now, so hold up :) Corpx 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and Salt. That notability guidline is for academics, and while he is an academic, it's not in that sense that he's being quoted as an expert, but from his corporate position. This falls under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people (Creative professionals), and none of these articles meet that guideline that I can see. CitiCat 04:25, 12 July 2007 (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.