Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Steinberg (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 The arguments for deletion are stronger and more persuasive than the arguments for retention of the article. There's no question that Joseph is bordering on being notable, but the arguments that he doesn't quite meet the requirements of our notability policy are clear and articulate, they make sense and are coherent. The arguments of those who have arrived on Wikipedia purely to support the retention of the article aren't to be completely ignored, but simply don't carry the same amount of weight as comments made by long term contributors with a proven knowledge of relevant notability and deletion policies, such as DGG. I'm not entirely convinced that the arguments made for retention by a number of editors below are entirely based on a firm and proven understanding of relevant policy and previous application. Nick (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Steinberg
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very  promotional article on sub- borderline notable subject. As for promotionalism, I think any article calling someone notable as a "thought leader" is puffery, and saying so in the lede sentence and the infobox is utter puffery. The claims in the article are exaggerated. He has published one-quarter of a book, not four books. His actual co-authored book is SSL VPN: Understanding, Evaluating and Planning Secure, Web-Based Remote Access , and he's not one of rwo coauthors, as claimed in this article, but one of four, as given authoritatively in WorldCat  The 1st one listed is not yet published and is in any case just a revised edition. The 3rd is a French translation of the same book. The 4th is a total of seven pages in a book edited by someone else.

Aside from that, he has contributed to the usual conferences and "gatherings", and written on "a variety of other topics" The many references are him being quoted, almost always alongwith other people, in a number of publications. All of it together doesn't make him a thought leader, even if the term were meaningful (I translate it as authoritative pioneer, for which there is not the least evidence.

However, his book is in a good number of libraries (544 a/c Worldcat), so he might become notable if he writes another. Not just a revised edition. I'll write the article myself if he does and it gets major reviews.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm not sure how different the current article is compared to the previously deleted ones (if substantially similar then speedy deletion might apply), but I certainly don't think that the notability issues have been resolved. If kept, the cornucopia of peacock terms should at least be addressed. M. Caecilius (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I saw Steinberg on television in Canada not that long ago and he is widely quoted about security matters in the security, business, and mainstream press per the links in the article (and a Google search). I agree with Dkriegls: per WP:Creative  which definitely applies since Steinberg is known primarily for his writing and for creating new technology: Based on the number of his peers who quote him, and other respected journalists who quote him, Steinberg is clearly “regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers.” Even more true since his patents are also cited by many of his peers. The links on Steinberg’s Google’s scholar page show besides many security companies citing his patents, some of those citing him are from other major computer companies like Microsoft so clearly Steinberg is also notable for “originating a significant new concept, theory or technique” as well as “widely cited by peers.” I also believe the other point Dkriegls made about Steinberg playing a major role in co-creating a significant work applies for the reason that he mentioned above. Steinberg meets criteria 1, 2, and 3. Definitely notable. 99.226.47.28 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — 99.226.47.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep 1. I was working on the peacock when you nominated the article. Please improve. 2. He may not have been notable in 2006 and 2007 when the original deletions were made, but today he certainly is. Since 2012 he writes a Forbes column that gets a large number of readers and shares, is quoted all over the place (I put a reference to one example article with over 1,000 quotes from it), and has influenced various issues - see the references cited in the article. 3. Vis-à-vis the books - the information in nom is not correct. Steinberg was the primary author of the SSL VPN book, Speed was the secondary and only other author. No others. You can look at the actual cover and inside the book at and all of this is obvious. The other two people listed in Worldcat are listed in the book as the indexer and technical editor, not authors. Steinberg's name appears large on the cover and see Speed's thank yous. I fixed the translation book. Regarding The ISC2 book - checking their website  shows that they changed the curriculum and hence needed a new book for a second edition. 4. His innovations have been cited in almost 70 patents/scholarly articles since 2009. Nearly all the citations listed in Google scholar are after the prior Wikipedia deletions. Old article could not have looked like this one. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not entirely relevant, as writing for a magazine doesn't establish notability in and of itself, but since the lede states that Steinberg writes for Forbes, it should be noted that writing for the magazine post-2010 (when they switched to a digital content model) is of no real significance. There are more than 1,300 contributors and, to quote USA Today, "(Forbes) is not a magazine or editorial operation at all. It is just, in effect, a user comment site that allows commenters the pretense of saying they have written for Forbes. Or, even, for paid promoters to write laudatory articles for Forbes..." JSFarman (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What creates notability for a writer is not the writing, but how well read the pieces are and how well they are shared and discussed. As I wrote in the article (with citations) he has been syndicated, translated, and widely quoted. You can also check the view and sharecounts on his articles. I did. That's not what USAToday is talking about. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That he's been widely quoted is a possible argument for notability. My only point is that writing for Forbes isn't. JSFarman (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I work in IT Security. He is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.90.37 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep this entry. The author is a known writer in the subject of IT security as well as a writer for Forbes magazine and other publications. - --Keith4298 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC) — Keith4298 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Agree. Researching recent security vulnerabilities his name came up in many articles including the wikipedia article on the heartbleed bug that brought me here.107.14.54.0 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Improved the article based on feedback above. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Page protection may also be needed at this point. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep But Edit. The sum of the subject’s activity is that he is a security researcher who is researching and inventing things and researching and publishing his original thoughts. His Forbes writing is him researching a security or scam related topic and then publishing his findings and opinions. Based on the number of times he has been cited, both his inventions and his articles, he certainly meets the Wikipedia notability requirements of a researcher being "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." This article is definitely a KEEP, but the article should be edited to reflect the subject’s notability better. On another note: the original nomination states that there were 4 authors of the subject’s first book. The publisher’s website shows only 2, just like the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.205.251 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — 67.84.205.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Good point that unifies his mix of roles into one. Thank you. I edited it as you recommended. And yes, two authors on the book. Please feel free to make more edits. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clears both criterion one and three of WP:Creative. Creative is apt here as his notability is primarily from his writing and security software coding expertise. While I agree the article needs significant work to avoid being a PR piece, I think he meets significance per my two comments below. (Disclosure: I don't know Steinberg but was asked by a mutual friend to review the page) -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Passing criterion one "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers": the number of times he's been cited as referenced in the article are significant, as well as this reference to Steinberg in Reuters referring to him as a "security expert", writen by "one of nation's leading consumer journalists", Mitch Lipka. I would argue that it is a valid consideration of Steinberg as an important figure if he's the go-to quote for security experts by one of the nations top consumer journalists.-- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Passing criterion three. Three elements combine to meet this criterion: (1) Steinberg is first author of a book carried in several libraries; (2) his contributing authorship in a rather significant security manual published by a leading IT security organization (ISC)²; (3) rounded out with his 11 Computer Science and Information Security patents representing a "collective body of work" that have been the subject of "multiple independent...reviews"--  D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are several reasons to keep this article (clears WP:Creative 1,2 and 3, and possible improper nomination for deletion) even though it clearly needs editing. Perhaps it should be moved to a userspace and fixed and then restored?
 * Comment1 The nomination seeks to consider the subject as non-notable based on applying the wrong criteria for notability. Einstein’s rule: “If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” The subject is a technical inventor and writer. (He is not a researcher – this is wrong and needs to be fixed in the article.) In response to this nomination, one commenter wrote above to delete “per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.” Being a Forbes author does not on its own for certain make someone notable however the fact that the references in the article and Google searches show thousands of independent parties including many obviously reliable sources citing him and referring to him either as a “Forbes cybersecurity columnist” or a “cybersecurity expert” indicates that he is notable as a Forbes writer and cybersecurity expert. Those are precisely the type of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that should exist for a notable technical writer. The subject does not need his biography discussed to be notable for what he does. He does need to have his ideas be notably influential and cited in reliable independent sources. Do his ideas have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Yes. Someone cited as often as he is, by reliable and independent parties, is notable. Someone whose patents (which are obviously his ideas) are cited by many dozens of others is notable. The number of libraries carrying a technical book that he wrote is further evidence. He clearly falls into the groups described in WP:CREATIVE as “notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources” and meets several criteria of being a notable creative professional WP:CREATIVE. It seems obvious to me that he meets criteria 1, 2, and 3 of this area.
 * Comment2 The earlier deletions of this article occurred 7 and 8 years ago when the subject appears to have been far less notable. They are not relevant now. Google Scholar shows the vast majority of the subject’s citations occurring afterward. The same is true for quotes found online although old ones might have disappeared over time.
 * Comment3 It appears that the nomination was done improperly per Wikipedia policies. Per WP:BEFORE before nominating for deletion due to a lack of notability “The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.” It is clear that the nominator did not perform such a search as a search contradicts half the content of the nomination. Google Book search shows clearly and undebatably that there were two authors of the subject’s first book and that the subject was the primary author. The nominator stated that the subject “has published one-quarter of a book, not four books… His actual co-authored book is SSL VPN: Understanding, Evaluating and Planning Secure, Web-Based Remote Access, and he's not one of rwo (sic.) coauthors, as claimed in this article, but one of four.” This statement in the nomination falsely diminishes the notability of the subject by claiming that there were four equal authors rather than the author as the more significant one of two. The nominator also appears not to have checked the Google Scholar page for the subject which shows a significant numbers of citations of the subject’s work. It also appears in the history of this article that the nominator earlier nominated the article for speedy deletion after it had been moved from AfC to Wikipedia. Even if one wants to “assume good faith,” in light of these facts one must raise serious questions about the quality of this nomination for deletion, as well as about the objectivity involved in nominating it, and any deletion based on this nomination would seem to show a capricious enforcement Wikipedia of policy. --> 64.134.102.239 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — 64.134.102.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment I made edits based on all the feedback above. If the administrators/editors still do not like the page please move it to my UserSpace and let me know what should be edited. Thank you.Jersey92 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)*Keep -- He is American but is known here in hi-tech in Israel for his work and writing in IT security. He is notable for 4 reasons all from WP:Creative:


 * Criteria 1. He is a “important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.” Based on the number of people who cited him, who cited him, and what they call him: security publications, security articles, security magazines and security papers (some linked in the article). Reuters, Fox, Tribune, and many other reliable, independent and respected media all call him a “cybersecurity expert”: links in article. If so many people in his field and in other fields know who he is and they choose to go to him for his opinion and respected professional journalists and people who write about security want to cite him and they call him an expert he is notable.


 * Criteria 2: He is “originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.” He is double notable for this. He is known for “the use of visual cues to combat phishing” like in the article. This technology is found today in many secure websites like online banking all over the world. On the Google Scholar there are 50 other people’s patents that cite his patents in this area. This can only happen if he “originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique.” The same for SSL VPN like in the article. He originated many of the security portions of it according to the http://www.sans.org/ paper in the article. SANS is respected and clearly reliable and independent.


 * Criteria 3: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” His SSL VPN book is discussed and reviewed and is in libraries. Google Scholar shows his patents have been reviewed by many people otherwise they could not cite him in their own. The articles he writes have been discussed by many other media. ISC2 books are always reviewed.


 * Criteria 4: “The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.” This criteria does not make sense for technology. The equivalent in technology would be a book being in many libraries. His book is.

Any one of these reasons would make him notable. And there are several together.

Also the nomination above contains false claims that he wrote only 1/4 of a book. This was a big amount of the claim that he is not notable. Wikipedia should not really delete articles based on mistakes.

81.218.126.150 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I also work in IT (over 30 years). I also agree with Dkriegls: per WP:Creative, definitely notable in his field.  I fail to find the reference regarding the original deletion requestor's comment "I think any article calling someone notable as a "thought leader" is puffery".

And the comment "He has published one-quarter of a book, not four books" is disingenuous based on the following observations:

1. There are only three books listed in the article, not four.

2. The article clearly states that "The Official (ISC)2 Guide to the ISSMP CBK - Second Edition" is "Expected Fall 2014".

3. The book "SSL VPN: Understanding, Evaluating and Planning Secure, Web-Based Remote Access with Tim Speed." gives credit to Tim Speed. However, the book has Joseph Steinberg in large letters and Tim Speed in smaller font on the cover, and is missing the other 2 authors claimed by the deletion requestor. WorldCat has the other two people listed as "technical editors", not authors (Author editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author_editing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshinnick (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per above. 38.105.155.6 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP I work with data security. Steinberg is known for both his writing and inventing anti-phishing technology. He should be notable for people outside the industry based on how often he is quoted in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.19.191.106 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm having trouble discerning which I find more annoying--all of the IPs for whom !voting "keep" is somehow the motivation to start editing Wikipedia, or all of the peacockery in the article itself. I would strongly favor taking a chain saw to all of the promotion and puffery, but there appears to be just enough genuine notability there for some sort of valid article once the sawdust is blown away.  -- Finngall   talk  23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I took a stab at clean up and removed some of the more egregious puffery. The "Influence" section still needs some work, but I got tired of checking sources. It probably needs a new name as well. But the rest of the article should pass muster now. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Relist rationale: Obvious result of canvassing is obvious. At this point, I would like to see more views from editors who have an evidenced history of understanding our policies and guidelines. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The person does seem notable but the article also seems promotional so IMHO it just needs rewriting. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks notability per Wikipedia standards. Although having 70 citations showing up in Google Scholar is an accomplishment (there are many people with thousands of citations to their work), in my opinion Mr. Steinberg's publications or work does not seem to have made a significant impact in his field of expertise or reached a level of notability to justify having a profile in Wikipedia. I would really like to see a profile of Mr. Steinberg in Wikipedia whenever his work gets a few hundred if not a few thousand citations in Google Scholar. Respectfully, --DukeU (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Easily passes WP:Creative in multiple regards. Comments explain. Portions are quoted from people above:
 * Comment Criteria 1. He is an "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Based on the significant number of people who cited him (thousands in recent months - e.g., about the heartbleed security bug), who the people are who cite him (many reliable, independent, respected parties), and what they call him (expert): Security publications, security articles, security magazines and security papers (many linked in the article) do this, as do major media outlets like Reuters, Fox News, Tribune and co., Politico and many other reliable, independent and respected media (some cited in article) all call him a “cybersecurity expert” or “security expert.” Per User:Dkriegls among those referring to him as a "security expert" is a Reuters journalist described by Time as “one of the nation's leading consumer journalists” (Mitch Lipka). In | DarkReading a senior security advisor for cybersecurity firm Sophos also refers to him as “a security expert.” Major security firm Fortinet also recently quoted him about a major security issue. If a large number of people in his field and in other fields know who he is and choose to go to him for his expert opinion on security matters, and top-ranked journalists and people who write about security want to cite him, and they call him an expert, he clearly meets the WP:Creative criteria of being an "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and is notable.
 * Comment Criteria 2: He “originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory or technique.” He is known for “the use of visual cues to combat phishing” which is technology found today on many secure websites like online banking all over the world. On the [|Google Scholar] there are over 50 other people’s patents that cite his patents in this area. Obviously, if there are over 50 patents (including from firms like Microsoft) that cite Steinberg’s innovation in this one area he must have “originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique.” Per the Scholar page there is also a big increase in citing him in the last few years as technologies based on his innovations are becoming more widespread. The same is true for SSL VPN. He originated many of the security portions of it according to the SANS paper referred to on Google Scholar. SANS is clearly an independent, reliable party. References for these appear in the article.
 * Comment Criteria 3: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” His SSL VPN book is discussed and reviewed and is in over 500 libraries per Worldcat. That is significant for a technical book. It is used in university courses - e.g. in link, and is listed as a suggested reference in an official certification exam study guide. Google Scholar shows his patents have been reviewed by many people otherwise they could not cite him in their own. The articles he writes have been discussed by many other media - see references in Comment on criteria 1 above. ISC2 books are by definition significant works that are reviewed by many in the field. -- Jersey92 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (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.