Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Bambenek


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

The article John Bambenek was deleted after a drive-by bad-faith nomination who didn't even enter the AfD correctly (because anons can't start AfD's). You can view the comments at Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and at the deletion review here. For reference, the first AfD was less than 3 months earlier, the result was kept, and nothing changed except the subject was referenced in both the New York Times and Jackson Clarion-Ledger since the first AfD. Articles for deletion/John Bambenek. The subject has multiple REAL books published (which can be bought in paper form in edition to writing some of the certification material for SANS/GIAC.  He has a few papers out there, including the only study that estimated how much money has been compromised by spyware.  Notability is achieved a number of ways.  There are about a dozen mainstream media mentions for his information security work.  He contributes regularly to several blogs that reach over 5000 a day.  He was referenced by the New York Times in a front page article.  Namely, this suffices to meet criteria 6, 8, and 9 in WP:BIO.  The deleting votes actually argued that being mentioned in the New York Times as an expert in computer security and used for a source in an article that had a global audience was evidence of non-notability.  User:Tony Sidaway, not known for being an inclusionist, voted to keep the article because the deletion was absurd. 14 of his articles for the self-financed paper Daily Illini with a circulation of 20,000 have been syndicated (also generally considered as making one notable) according to Lexis-Nexis.


 * 1) The AfD should have never taken place because the original nominator didn't even do it correctly, nor had the ability to start it.
 * 2) It was an obvious bad faith nomination.
 * 3) The AfD should have never taken place because it was too soon after the 1st AfD.
 * 4) The notability of the subject is established meeting not one, but 3 of the criteria in WP:BIO.
 * 5) Many of the people voting for deletion claimed things that were not even true.  The books were not online, they were paper, for instance.  The Daily Illini is not a "college paper" but a self-financed publication that is entirely seperate from the University.  Check the corporate listings for Illini Media Company (DI's parent company) here.

-- Alpha269 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WashPo article mentioning research. -- Alpha269 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Several computer experts and executives are mentioned in the Washington Post article, none of them have Wikipedia articles. This article was deleted in an AfD and its deletion was confirmed at WP:DR. It is not clear what policy you want changed. -Will Beback 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like policy followed, not changed. Someone made the same argument that some people mentioned in the NYT as experts don't have articles.  Maybe they should have them because it certainly follows that they are within the guidelines of WP:NOT and this exact thing has been used as de facto proof of notability in not a few AfD's.  -- Alpha269 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The appropriate venue for discussing whether the deletion policy has been followed is WP:DR. The purpose of this page is:
 * [T]o request comment on policy or guideline topics. That applies both to disputes about any current policy or guideline, and any new proposals or amendments to those. Further, policy matters are also discussed at Village pump (policy).
 * Since you do not wish to change the policy this does not belong here. Please do not keep venue shopping. As for guidelines about notability, they are simply guides for AfD. AfD is the point where notability is actually decide. Since you have appealed it already there is nothing left to do but wait until the subject does something new which increases his notability. -Will Beback 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: WP:NOT is What Wikipedia is not. I don't think it is the policy you were looking for, but you should read it nonetheless. -Will Beback 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Another sysop said if I thought the DR process was wrong, I could appeal here. I'm appealing.  This is also listed in the process of handling disputes.  I have a dispute.  I'm not venue shopping, you are assuming bad faith.  AfD's can be appealed to DR.  Doing it isn't venue shopping.  I was told and the dispute page suggests RfCs can be used for disputes.  I'm using it.  I'm sorry you don't like me rolling over here, but I have a dispute and I'm following the appropriate policies.  Fine WP:BIO is what I meant, my bad.  I pointed to a new Washington Post article as proof that this isn't a one-hit wonder, but no matter how many large media outlets thinks he's notable, apparently we disregard notability guidelines because it has been predetermined to delete this article.  This is a dispute, I'm following the process that's been established and I'm getting damn tired of sysops accusing me of bad faith simply because I am following the process.  I was accused of forum shopping for going to deletion review, despite that being the right place to appeal deletions.  Now I'm being accused of the same after a sysop who voted to delete told me this is where I should take it.  The more you bash me, the more it seems like you have skin in this game and have a personal grudge. -- Alpha269 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not bashing you. I am pointing our that you have taken this to a number of pages asking for redress. The outcome of WP:DR was decisive. Only you and one other person user:Tony Sidaway voted to restore while 16 votes confirmed the closure. Despite that clear endorsement you re-created the article anyway, in opposition to the consensus of the Afd and the DR. The promotion of John Bamabenek on Wikipedia is getting tiresome, and may come to reflect poorly on the subject. If he is notable now, as you contend, he will still be notable in six months or a year. You are not proposing any changes to our policies, and don't even seem to be familiar with them, please don't disrupt Wikipedia. -Will Beback 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP:DR policy states clearly, as did User:Onthost that this is where I can take this. It is my right to appeal when I don't think the process was followed, I'm sorry you disagree, but it's time to move one.  You should note one thing, if User:Tony Sidaway, a reknown deletionist, says the process was crap, you'd think people would listen.  It's not like he's a meatpuppet.  Disagreeing with you and following the dispute resolution process isn't disrupting wikipedia, it's what the process is there for.  How many policies must you insist we throw out just to get this article deleted?-- Alpha269 01:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it is my turn to have gotten an abbreviation wrong, I meant WP:DRV, aka Deletion review. RfCs are not normally used for deletion review, which is all this is. Also see Undeletion policy. -Will Beback 01:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point is noted, let us continue with this regularly scheduled RfC, I don't think this is getting anywhere. I was told this was the next step, WP:DR indicated this is part of the dispute resolution process, and this discussion only shows that between you and me, we are getting no where. -- Alpha269 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Another sysop said if I thought the DR process was wrong, I could appeal here." The person who told you to appeal here is neither a sysop, nor correct about the purpose of RfC. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, I thought he was, I guess he's not. However, the RfC process is listed in dispute resolution for a reason, I suspect that reason was so that people could tell others when they disagree they can't have RfCs. -- Alpha269 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've also posted a question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Deletion review review? asking about whther RfCs are used for this purpose. -Will Beback 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh, there is no dispute here aside from you failing to accept community consensus, administrative decision, and policy. Period.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noted why this decision did not meet with policy. However, thank you for assuming good faith and making wikipedia a warm and welcoming place. -- Alpha269 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Haven't read the article, but after reading your first 'reason' I smell Wikilawyering (insignificant technical points over the actual object and purpose of the policy). Oh and, by the way, you do know that RFC can't actually do anything - it can't get your article undeleted, it can't desysop the deleting admin, it can't ban everyone who voted to delete the article. Cynical 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it to deletion review which is the correct forum. JoshuaZ 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The drive-by sysops have banned anyone that dare question the cabal. This RFC is dead. -- 130.126.138.6 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.