Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum (2nd 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, primarily given that the arguments in favour of retaining the article were clutching at straws. No convincing assertion of notability or other decisive policy-based reason for keeping the article has been made. Skomorokh, barbarian  12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Apelbaum
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. This article seems to be of a borderline notability. To me it seems that if we include this article there is no reason to include a large portion of the worlds workforce. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep subject extensively cites notability, nomination is a strawman argument UltraMagnusspeak 12:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability well established via numerous corroborating secondary external sources as cited. Article has previously been reviewed and deemed within the scope of both WikiProject Computer Security and WikiProject Biography. Subject is also a published author (Google Books, Amazon, etc.). --JAF 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Books are all self-published; patents are all to nn freepatentsonline.com pages; previous contentious Afd discussions about pretty much the exact same content was derailed when the page was blanked by author, then recreated by one of a number of editors and IPs that relentlessly promote this person and his nn contributions.

Here are some of the editors. Please be sure to review user and talk history as most have been blanked:

Flowanda | Talk 04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And no, I have absolutely no COI or interest past, present or future related to this subject just in case anyone wants to go there again. Flowanda | Talk 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * please do not remove large portions of a page that is under AFD, especially after you have voted to delete it --UltraMagnusspeak 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks for rolling those edits back. Flowanda | Talk 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My Comments
 * Article background recap - I originally blanked the article after an AfD debate (resulting in no consensus) in an effort to bring it to a more mature level. As it stands, it has passed muster as a stub article within the scope of both the WikiProject Computer Security and Biography groups.
 * Publisher validity - Books are not self published (see Google Books for publisherinfo) and have been cited in both secondary and tertiary sources. Also see availability on Amazon.
 * Patents notability - (1) The patents are notable covering contemporary internet and security technologies.
 * Publication notability - Some notable published articles in both juried and research venues: (2) Marine Bilge Keels, (3) Behind the Scenes of Virtual Jihad: The Anatomy of a Jihadist Forum, (4) Behind the Scenes of Virtual Jihad Part II
 * Not an orphan article - Contrary to the tag posted, article is not an orphan and is currently linked. It previously contained additional links to projects such as the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Ogilvie Transportation, AREMA, and others but these were recently removed by another editor.
 * Media coverage (re: notability) - Article contains numerous links to media coverage with both direct interviews with and discussions about subject and his work.
 * Subject's key contributions to notable projects - The Construction Manager, AREMA’s Digital Proceedings On-Line and AREMA's Electronic Document Library, SocialSense platform, Project Engineer of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge demolition project, QA\QC Manager of the Ogilvie Transportation project

--JAF 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 October 2009

Comment on the article edits I made:
 * None of the sources indicate Apelbaum is well known or a significant contributor or even mentioned at all.
 * The Microsoft vulnerability source was an unanswered post on a Microsoft-related newsgroup forum.
 * Books sourced to a commerce site, even if it's Amazon, does nothing to prove notability or proof of third-party publishing. And the ISBNs (which can be purchased by anyone) listed don't even exist. ASINs are Amazon product numbers.
 * Multiple links to a personal blog or Google Books or Docs are not an indication of notability.
 * Freepatentsonline.com is a questionable primary source and should only be used to supplement third-party, independent news reporting on the patents and not be used as a measure of notability.
 * And most of the internally linked articles were also edited or created by the above editors, including Networked Insights and SocialSense.

Flowanda | Talk 06:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All seven of his patents are listed on the official website of the United States patent site [site.http://www.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/htsearch?words=Jacob+Apelbaum&config=htdig-www] Freepatentsonline shows every single patent ever made, freely letting you search for them and read information.  Links to the official government site in the article might be a better choice.  Can we prove any of these patents are notable?   D r e a m Focus  00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Since First Data is a major company, and paid to use his patents, they must be fairly important. I say that makes him notable enough.   D r e a m Focus  05:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no verification of such a fact other than Apelbaum's press releases, and the info alone doesn't show any proof of notability unless there is significant news or trade coverage of the sale or a related aspect. Just selling to or suing a "major company" does not make a person notable. Flowanda | Talk 19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete since no reliable sources discuss the subject of this biography in any depth, certainly not the depth to be considered notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Having sourced assertions of notability and significant coverage in reliable sources may be seen by guideline to meet WP:BIO through WP:GNG. As an author and inventor he seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. I have never heard of the subject before today. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.


 * Delete. My reasoning:
 * Books: he's had four books published, all through Fuji Technology Press. Whether it's because they were English language books put out by a Japanese publisher, or because FTP no longer publishes books (they're now journals only), I don't know, but all of them are out of print, and his name can't be found on their Web site (alternate search method, same result). According to WorldCat, no libraries hold any of his books, so they don't contribute to notability.
 * No Google news hits from secondary reliable sources. None. That is, zero. How do we write an article with no sources?
 * Virtually no Google Web hits at all, once we remove Wikipedia mirrors, Facebook, LiveJournal, LinkedIn, and such.
 * According to Google Scholar, no one has found his books or patents worth citing.
 * So far as I can tell, he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC (neither the books nor the patents count), WP:CREATIVE (never cited by peers), or WP:GNG (no articles about him).
 * To those saying keep, could you please explain precisely what criteria you believe this article meets, and why?
 * And if any of you truly believe that writing tech books is in itself sufficient for notability, I'd be happy to give you plenty of names of authors who've each written dozens of books, sold hundreds of thousands of copies, and whose books are held by thousands of libraries (so long as you don't include me, please! ). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * His patents alone support the WP:CREATIVE criteria as having originated significant new techniques. Wide citation by peers is only one of the suggested (not mandatory) criteria for inclusion. Patents are notable. Credible reference to four of the patents being used by First Data on their platforms 1.
 * Google and news search indicates he recently released a social networking platform 2.
 * Books are not self published and ISBNs are legit. I found The User Authentication Principals on Amazon 3.
 * He is involved in scholarly research and is known for his involvement, so WP:ACADEMIC is indeed applicable. Google books shows he published an article in the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (U.S.) 1992 4 and two academic (i.e. non-commercial) security related publications 5, 6 referenced by The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies 7.
 * Articles citing his leadership roles on a number of notable Civil Engineering projects. 8, 9,10.
 * Presentations in well known software development industry events11.
 * He has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable third-party publications. There are a number of printed press articles about him, including at least one dedicated interview 12, 13.
 * The overall evidence indicates notability and non-trivial contributions to academic publications, creation of useful IP, and practical disciplines including civil engineering, software development, and security.--CG 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGuass (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 October 2009 —  CarlGuass (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comments on the above:
 * WP:CREATIVE says nothing at all about patents, so they don't help towards meeting its criteria.
 * Google and news search indicates that the company he works for put out a press release that included his name—which doesn't apply towards notability.
 * I found The User Authentication Principals on Amazon where it shows that they don't sell a printed hardcopy version, only an eBook version. And there's no sales rank shown on that page, which implies that Amazon has never sold a copy (and at $158 per Kindle copy, I can't say I'm surprised).
 * WP:ACADEMIC is indeed applicable except that there is no record, anywhere, of any academics having cited him or his works—which is what WP:ACADEMIC is primarily about.
 * Articles citing his leadership roles don't. The PDF is a newsletter published by a county Dept. of Public Works. It contains a short "guest commentary" reminiscing about a demolished bridge, which mentions numerous people, one of whom is Apelbaum. The two other links are to Google Docs, neither of which has clear sourcing, and both of which only mention Apelbaum in passing.
 * Presentations in well known software development industry events - that link is to the SxSWi panel picker. It doesn't mean he's ever spoken at SxSW, or that he ever will. What it shows is that he proposed giving a talk at SxSW Interactive 2010. I believe about 10% of the proposals actually end up accepted and presented. (Note: for those seeking a COI, I have no problem stating that I spoke at SxSWi in 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, & 2009. Interactive is a fun conference ("Spring Break for Web Geeks!"), but it's most definitely not a "software development industry event," well known or otherwise.)
 * the subject of multiple independent and reliable third-party publications - links are to two Google docs, which, again, are not sourced. Neither is about Apelbaum; the one described as a "dedicated interview" is instead Apelbaum discussing a project. If it was properly sourced it might be useful towards an article on that project, but it tells us nothing about Apelbaum himself.
 * Overall, there's still no solid basis to show he meets any of the notability criteria. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —Flowanda | Talk 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Flowanda | Talk 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Flowanda | Talk 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  —Flowanda | Talk 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No demonstrated notability. His supposed books don't show up in Worldcat, I tried Google news for the subjects he's supposedly notable for and found only a lawsuit and a press release, and it's been established in past AfDs that merely having patents isn't good enough. I found this through WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but there's no sign of academic notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Add to David's points that he's certainly not a notable civil engineer either. Article implies he's been head or GM of the listed projects, but in checking the sources, he's basically only offered a few spokesman's talking points in brief trade pub and local newspaper articles and is listed as "project engineer". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment I think there are significant civil engineering contributions for the following reasons:
 * The article in Engineering News-Record identifies him as the Project Manager certainly, a significant decision maker in one of the largest and most complex bridge demolitions in the world.
 * On the Chicago Northwestern Station rehab (138 million project!) he is identified as a Manager.
 * He is identified as the inventor and developer of a commercial civil engineering software package The Construction Manager--JAF 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The SPANS article lists him specifically as "Project Engineer", but it may be moot to quibble over terminology because there are thousands of large-scale demolition and construction projects every year (the latter usually more newsworthy) and these by themselves do not make a project manager notable. Significant accolades are sometimes showered on the designers and architects, but not typically managers. The question is whether he developed or implemented any new methods that had a substantial impact in civil engineering and it seems the answer is no. (I'm thinking here of folks like Hardy Cross or Joseph Colaco as a comparison.) I also doubt that a single trade software package qualifies him – there are hundreds of such packages in use and there's no evidence that his has impacted the field. With all due respect, of the tens of thousands of active civils and construction managers, the only visible distinction I see for him is this puffy article that tries to assemble several disparate pieces into a passable case of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC).


 * delete per David Eppstein, Agricola44. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources cited are not much about Apelbaum. They rather describe him as an engineer which the press talked to during various projects. (I wanted to close this, but had trouble reading whether or not there was a consensus here, so I reviewed the article to decide what I think ought to be done. I hope my input makes this easier for another closer, but it should not be given any extra weight.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:15, 27 October 2009 (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.