Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination)

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. --Ezeu 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John C. A. Bambenek

John C. A. Bambenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

John Bambenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Columnist with contested syndication status. Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review due to new information, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. -- ChrisPerardi 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note According to a quick lexis search and his bio website he's been syndicated by U-Wire, Nextex (I'm not sure what that is) and Advance Publications. Self-Syndication means that instead of an agency selling your column, you do it yourself. The end result is the same to the end reader, they read a column, there is just no agent taking half the fees. -- ChrisPerardi 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ... that's why syndication alone is not notability. He's put it out for syndication, but what notable publications have published him? (And I do NOT mean "quoted him") --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as he seems almost notable, but in DRV it was noted that his column is "self-syndicated, meaning he posts it many place" -- this is not notability. Being widely quoted is not by itself notability, it just indicates aggressiveness getting on reporters' rolodexes. The books are a maybe -- they might pass the review test or not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bleh, it is not any significant syndication. show us numbers to convince us of notability. --Buridan 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, is read by many in a number of very well-known publications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Artcle says his columns have appeared in the LA Times and Washington Post. I just did a search of John C. A. Bambenek at both sites. Nothing current written by John C. A. Bambenek at the LA Times, and nothing in their archives written by him. Nothing current written by ohn C. A. Bambenek at the Washington Post, and nothing in their archives written by him. He's a college newspaper columnist which is not notable enough for a Wiki entry.TruthGal 15:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Confirmed. The sentence "His commentary has appeared in the Washington Post and the L.A. Times." is resume puffery -- he has been quoted, as a "SANS researcher", in both publications. His "syndication" is a crock, and his highest post in "journalism career" is assistant editor of a blog. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've trimmed the article removing some of the less credible claims and puffery like overstating the importance of being mentioned in a blog. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ChrisPerardi. Heavily read syndicated columnist and writer in multiple publications. --Oakshade 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete No evidence of being a significant syndicated columnist; Fails WP:V. Contributor to a few technical books is not evidence of encyclopedic notability. In general, the rticle reads like resume puffery as per Dhartung Bwithh 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that article is still wholly unsourced. The question whether/how he was syndicated seems ancillary as long as the main question, whether his claims to notability can be backed with independent sources, is unanswered. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A search on Amazon.com turns up no publications by John Bambenek. The Washington Post article is a one line quote. I don't see any evidence as to where he is syndicated "since 2006" - and 100,000 circulation is, like, 3 or 4 suburban community papers. This guy is a publicity hound. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 19:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Has anyone even TRIED looking at lexis... here's a quick list of references...
    • eWeek [1]
    • PCWorld [2]
    • InfoWorld [3]
    • SearchSecurity [4]
    • Consumer Affairs [5]
    • C-Net [6]
    • State of Oregon [7]
    • his own college [8]
    • Seatlle Times [9]
    • LA Times [10]
    • The NYTimes article [11]
  • This also entirely fails to address his information security expertise. The books are real, the ISBN's are verified, if you want to see the contributors to the book, you can see these links... here and the books can be bought here. It skips past the fact he was invited to a conference sponsored, in part, by the Dept. of Homeland Security, his presentation is here. He's been quoted far and wide in that capacity and here and here for starters (and that's not including several foreign sites that talk about his research), including be interviewed on several radio programs. If people have a problem with the way something is written, but all means edit. However, he was mentioned in 4 different Wikipedia articles before this page was even created. That at least suggests notability. -- ChrisPerardi 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Searching the SANS site, I was unable to find any of these publications for sale, except for the ones he is listed (in this article) as only a contributor to. I suspect the others are at best "white papers". If you do a search on "Bambenek" on the SANS site, you get one hit, where he is thanked for helping to prepare a tutorial. And, by the way, ChrisPerardi has made virtually no Wikipedia edits unrelated to John Bembenek. --Brianyoumans 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Further Comment - Of the long list of references above, a number of them no longer work, and the rest consist mostly of him being quoted as a representative of SANS. He does seem to have some very minor notability for discovering a minor security flaw in Mozilla in December 2005. But as far as I can tell, none of the articles is actually about Bambenek or centers on his work. --Brianyoumans 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody's saying the books aren't real (although some of them appear to be more white papers than books), but WP:BIO has a slightly higher standard. Most of those books are published by SANS, his employer. Several of the quotes have him acting as a spokesman for SANS, or his blog posts are quoted on various bugs. Making a presentation to a conference is normal for a researcher, not something unusual. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I am saying that those publications are not books. Two of them are brief white papers, one is self-published (his website), and the ones with the SANS name match the name of SANS-sponsored classes given at conferences, so it's possible he is the "author" of the courseware, but he isn't credited anywhere that passes WP:V, so I have commented them out. I'm not going to check all the "contributor" claims, but he is not a published book author as the article was clearly written to suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems like a lot of dodgy stuff is being put forward to assert his notability.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not convinced of notability per Dmz5. Akihabara 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete per above.Oo7565 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, per evidence by Dhartung, et al. -Will Beback · † · 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Protect page from recreation. I am the subject of this article and I endorse deletion, not because I really care what the semi-literate masses that waste time on Wikipedia think is notable (see Bubb Rubb to see how ridiculous the notability standard is) but because the Wikipedia model is garbage and prone to vandalize, slander and libel. Remove this page and prevent it's recreation. -- JohnBambenek 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Should anyone wish to verify that I, in fact, am John Bambenek, my e-mail is not hard to find (in fact, my university email is public record). Send me an email and I'll verify I posted this. -- JohnBambenek 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • By "semi-literate masses," do mean, like, people who use the word "it's" when they should use the word "its"? TruthGal 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • By "semi-literate masses", do you mean, like, people who use the word "it's" when they should use the word "its"?
      • Fix'd. Maybe try not criticising typos? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It was a joke. Sigh. Oh well, it won't matter soon, as the Bambenek entry fades away... TruthGal 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I misunderstood. Take note, everyone, it is hard to pull off sarcasm on the Internet, and you may just offend people. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note Hello, I'd like to note I'm the actual Chris Perardi. I make all my edits under the username User:perardi. (Although I've been inactive as of late.) I'd just like to state, for the record, I've not been involved in any of this. My contact e-mails are 'chris AT perardi.com' and 'perardi AT uiuc.edu'. perardi 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as notable as my left sock. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Syndication implies notability in the sense that I use the term, but by no stretch does my definition cover this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - seems to fail WP:V, and WP:BIO is in question. That the article subject doesn't want to be covered is ironic, because notariety would argue to the page's inclusion. Still, much of the text seems lifted from the other site. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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.