Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 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 of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A second AFD debate, recorded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination), resulted in a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a vanity page. The subject of the article has edited the page several times, and there's been several instances of unverfiable information, such as a gubernatorial run, inserted. perardi 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well known security expert. Article edited by numerous editors, but not by nom. Maybe the nom can explain why google gives 70,000 hits?. -- JJay 05:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Abstain for now per below. -- JJay 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Of which 152 are unique. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty funny- Love for John. -- JJay 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Change back to keep. First vote was correct, particularly given the allegations of bad faith below. -- JJay 20:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Quite a polymath, my only problem is the category for "politician" at the bottom of the article. Endomion 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after removing all the vanity. --Quarl 11:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, nn. The Google hits I checked all seemed to be resumes or profiles on interactive sites. If someone can find any media coverage on him, please point me to it. In any case, a high Google count does not necessarily establish notability (I have about 5000 hits on Google, myself). -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible that this is just taken from the preface of one of his books or something? It reads that way with a strong introductory narrative feel rather than something for an encylopedia article. Because of that reason I would suggest deletion to avoid further troubles but the publications might be noteworthy to keep somewhere. So I think it should be kept for that kind of resource as long as there is no copy vios. Keep--Ari89 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this the same guy? Security expert in the news around 9-10 December related a problem with Firefox. http://www.playfuls.com/news_0368_Mozilla_Firefox_15_Exploit_Much_Ado_About_Nothing.html

--Ari89 10:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is an exploratory committee that does meet weekly on Thursdays. Also, yes, it is the same person in that firefox article, and you can find several others if you have Lexis. Also, this nominator was involved with this vandalism [1] in the same article. -- 12.203.38.138 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would not call what User:Perardi did vandalism. He removed a section he believed did not belong in the article, and gave his reasons in the edit summary. I may not agree with the way he did it, but I will not call it vandalism. And someone at the IP address you are using added John Bambenek to the non-existant Category:Jedi Masters -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply' I wasn't talking about the paragraph, check the link, I was talking about the brutal anal raping by a priest and crackwhore sister vandalism. That IP was used by him at that time frame and was confirmed by linking his contributions at other forums and the IP used there. -- 12.203.38.138 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Due to the seriousness of this charge, I have asked an administrator to look into it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dalbury. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:50, Dec. 26, 2005
• Keep. As for media mentions, here are a few. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]. There is a published paper [here]. The article mentioned above by Ari89 is the same person also. A copyvio'd book is available online at [[5]] if you'd like to see that he in fact wrote on of those books. As an aside, Chris Perardi, the person who nominated this, is a new user who's first order of business when joining wikipedia was hitting John Bambenek's page and it seems to be his only contribution aside of his user page. Someone mentioned above he was involved in vandalism. He is an undergrad at the same University at which Bambenek works and has had several problems with him and campus conservatives in general. (John Bambenek is a columnist for a local paper also). He has in the past threatened violence against such people and has been warned for doing it. You can read his [blog post] here that, among other things, ripped on Bambenek. It's clear that this nomination was done in bad faith based on a personal grudge. -- 130.126.146.94 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Article requires a rewrite (I will volunteer), but subject is noteworthy. Given that the article was not written by the subject and that the subject is indeed noteworthy is not vanity. Given that the nominator is also associated with UIUC, I fear this may in fact be a bad faith nomination. TheChief (PowWow) 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears very likely that it was written by the subject. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? -Willmcw 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, I am personally familiar with Mr. Bambenek and he did not write the article. In fact when the article was first created, I was the one to point it out to him.
• Comment. Why does it have a link to category: Roman Catholics. Putting that in kind of gives the feel that its a vanity page by including personal stuff as only a category. I still think the other things on it maybe useful to people so im still with keeping it.--Ari89 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) my stupidness[reply]
• Keep. He is a columnist, a blogger, and is part of the faculty of a well known educational institution. His article belongs here. Although I do believe we can cut off some of the fat of the article, and maybe add a little bit more known facts later. We have a source where it seems Mr. Perardi published an email, cleverly quoting another, but nevertheless using this email to possibly smear the subject:

* John Bambenek, ultra-conservative columnist for the Daily

Illini and OBO member, is going to try to publicize the

event in his column next Friday. Not sure what can be done

about that... They're also going to chalk the Quad in

preparation for the event -- and they're brainstorming for

things to write, so we should have our heads up for that [6]

We know that the nominator clearly has a relationship with the subject, based upon the information we have been given [7], whether it is a legitimate, and positive relationship is for the rest of you to decide, based upon the quotes and statements Mr. Perardi has made regarding Mr. Bambenek. Very High Risk of bad faith, and personal conflicts, that should not be displayed in an encyclopedia. Эйрон Кинни 23:51, 30 December 2005 (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.