Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 SPEEDY DELETE as article was blanked by author and no other editors had made substantial contributions. -- But|seriously|folks  00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Apelbaum

edit
Jacob Apelbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not meet notability, but I could not speedy it because it indicated importance.--12 Noon 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I would ask you to please reconsider. Jacob more then passes the notability test. Consider the following facts:
    • 1. He has published 4 books in the U.S (see ISBN numbers for reference)
    • 2. He holds 7 U.S IT patents (see links to actual inventions)
    • 3. His inventions are used by several large organizations such as FDC, Microsoft ,and IBM
    • 4. He has been interviewed and mentioned in the media on at least 3 occasions (see references)
    • 5. He contributed significantly to several well world known engineering projects (including the Sunshine Skyway Bridge demolition, and the automation of PM)
Best regards, User:JillFine

— JillFine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Rjd0060 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

  • Strong Keep: This subject certainly does meet notability guidelines. It is also very well sourced. I am very suprised that this was nominated for deletion, considering it is only October, and it shouldn't be snowing yet. - Rjd0060 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete: What a mess this AfD has turned into. Per most arguments made below, this page clearly should be deleted. I definitely think that this subject meets notability guidelines, but that is nothing if it cannot be backed up by reliable 3rdPS. Maybe sometime in the future this can come back (assuming that there are some sources to back it up). - Rjd0060 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm impressed by his accomplishments, but I'm hard-pressed to see notability here. He's certainly successful, but accomplishment is not notability. He has published books, but I can't find reviews (they would likely be in trade magazines, to be sure). He has patents, but we have no independent attribution of their importance. There's an assertion that large organizations have made use of his work without any attribution to back it up. And three interviews in connection with two projects is not a lot. I guess if I got anything when I googled his name (in News Archive, or Books, I'd feel more confident. When I look at his papers in Google Scholar, there's no evidence of citation. Sorry to melt the snow, but I just don't see the notability, even with all the primary sources. We need secondary sources, because we're an encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from delete - see new comment) unless someone can provide references to those interviews. The links to patents on freepatentsonline.com are primary sources. Listing his four published books says nothing about notability. The external links establish notability for the Sunshine Skyway, but I don't see any mention of the article's subject.
As for the references in the article text, [1] is a primary source, and it doesn't mention Apelbaum. [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] don't mention the name "Apelbaum". I can't read the paper at [7], so I'm not sure if that establishes some notability. — Ksero 10:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the interview that Cheeser1 later removed. That's exactly what's needed to establish notability. If you can't find that article online, then there's nothing wrong with citing a paper source (like the newspaper that the article appeared in). As long as the journal that the interview was published in is legit, I change my opinion to keep. — Ksero 11:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I would ask you to reconsider again. Three interviews with major newspaper all pertaining to his areas of expertise (1 interview is dedicated entirely to him) does make him notable and makes him publicly known. Also, please read the actual 6 patent links, you can clearly see the importance of the inventions (these are not miscellaneous mechanical devices) they cover important areas such as VOIP, encryption, and AI. Finally, these article should address media notability: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.17.249 (talk • contribs)

— 71.167.17.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Rjd0060 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

comment - I have removed these images, which are copyrighted and cannot legally be uploaded to Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave the images up to help establish his notability. Also, why were the images of his books and other publications removed? Clearly they are original materials--DavidStock

— DavidStock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Rjd0060 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Because these images are NOT allowed on Wikipedia. You cannot upload copyrighted images, and we cannot use them in any part of Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Apelbaum is the copyright holder of his books and from the image information it looks like they were released to public ___domain. --DavidStock —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn't. Copyrights are almost universally held by the publisher of the book (and those newspaper clippings are decidedly not his). Furthermore, there is no way to know that the uploader is the copyright holder, and in the case of a published work, if the author actually does retain copyright, s/he is generally not allowed to release the work in to the public ___domain. Finally, why are you signing your contributions with one username and yet you are signed in as another? Please note that you cannot have more than one username. --Cheeser1 12:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can have more than one username. Colonel Warden 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. And when you're arguing to keep this page, as two users, that's not allowed. And what's funny is that they seem to trace back to the same place - the subject of this article. See here. I suspect serious conflict(s) of interest, no matter how many distinct people are posting here from the same workstation at their office. --Cheeser1 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the copyright issue, I stand corrected. As far as posting under Jill’s name, I was just talking to her about these postings (we work in the same area) and posted my question from her workstation. Sorry!!!
I just completed a quick search for similar linked and imbedded materials (news clippings and book cover images) and found several examples Eran_Ben-Shahar. Is there an exception to this policy? user:Jill Fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violations of copyright policy in one place do not justify those elsewhere, although the news clipping actually is allowed because it's being used to illustrate the news clipping itself, and includes critical commentary about that piece of news, not just to provide sourcing for info. --Cheeser1 —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. User:Jill Fine
  • That would be me:) I am a technical author\editor --JillFine —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear editors, I really appreciate your help and constructive input. This is my first attempt at posting to Wikipedia so please be patient and forgive the newbie mistakes. Cheeser1 has indicated that due to copyright issues, I cannot upload the newspaper article (referencing Jacob) and he promptly deleted them. But I understand that I need these newspaper articles and media releases I uploaded to address the notoriety issue brought up earlier in this discussion. So my dilemma is: if I can't show the articles to the reviewing editors, how can I illustrate Jacob's notoriety. Cheeser1 also feels strongly that all of the media references should only be cited. Can anyone give me an example of how one would go about citing the following article in Wikipedia? Image:CM Media.jpg--JillFine 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cite the article, you don't upload it. --Cheeser1 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have you actually read the Chicago Daily Herald article? One of Apelbaum's professional claims is that he developed a noted CM software product (the Construction Manager) which was used widely by Metra for the rehabilitation of the Ogilvie [[9]] transportation center. Anyone can clearly see, that the article is entirely dedicated to his work, his expertise, and achievements. As a matter of fact, no other individual is mentioned in it but him! He is quoted in it verbatim four times (see below) and any non-biased reader would conclude that the main purpose of the article was Apelbaum’s software contribution to construction management.

"It was either put it on computer or hire 50 more office workers," Apelbaum said.
"The CPT (Central Passenger Terminal) project covered every conceivable construction type," Apelbaum said.
"You've got a report and a pic¬ture," Apelbaum said.
"Seven years later, if something collapses, we can see exactly who inspected it.” Apelbaum said.

The same applies to the other news articles I provided which include: Herald-Tribune, the Bradenton Herald, Dodge Construction News, Between the Rails magazine, Hardaway company news releases, etc. I uploaded scanned images (the news outlets that published this information in print do not have the contents on-line) in order to establish the credibility of these references, and had no intention of keeping them permanently as exhibits. If there is any doubt about the authenticity of these documents, I will be more than happy to forward a confirmation letter from the news organizations. (this was my original posting but I forgot to login when I originally uploaded it. I am resigning it now)--JillFine 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being good at your job is not a part of the relevant notability guideline. If he was involved with notable projects (a bridge or a software program or whatever), then he is certainly allowed to be mentioned in articles about those projects (possibly), but he does not inherit notability from the notability of these projects. Also, please clear this up: do you have a personal relationship with Mr. Apelbaum (e.g. coworker, friend, etc)? --Cheeser1 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apelbaum notoriety is not derived from his association with notable projects, rather, it is from his exceptional technical skills and ingenuity (4 published books, 7 technology patens, and number of media references). In the case of the Construction Manager, he invented the concept and successfully implemented it on a wide commercial scale (this was one of the largest rehab projects in the U.S). The same applies to the rest of his professional contributions to engineering, computer science and technology. Over the past week, I have examined the credentials of numerous Wikipidia noted individuals within the category of engineering and computer science, and discovered that many claim’s of notoriety constitute a mere link to their university. Cheeser1! I find your continues insinuations of malice, questionable motives, and dishonesty offensive and unprofessional --JillFine 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Quite an accusation. Exceptional technical skills or book publishing are not how we establish notability. There must be third party sources that establish notability. The fact that I'm applying policy in this AfD is not offensive/unprofessional, nor is the fact that I've asked you not to include copyright protected images (images of published text, no less) in articles. This is entire scope of my comments. Furthermore, you and another user admit to having shared a workstation, which explains this. I presume that this can be explained in a similar fashion - a comment written by, and signed by, you was posted while someone was logged in as Mr. Apelbaum. I am simply asking for an explanation. --Cheeser1 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeser1, spare me the Orwellian surveillance ! The fact is, that an objective reviewer would find sufficient notability with a fraction of the information provided. At this point it doesn’t really matter how much more supporting information I provide, you need to save face and will do whatever it takes...--JillFine 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remain civil with the comments (take a deep breath); Cheeser1 may have tone issues, but if you listen to him it will help you. BTW, no matter how well written the article, IMO it still lacks notability and the fact that the author is in contact with the subject screams of conflict of interest. If a third party were authoring this article it would establish a bit more credibility (not to imply anything about the author's credibility).--12 Noon 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 12 Noon. I will point out that what people post to Wikipedia, anywhere, is open to public examination. The fact that conflict of interest problems may exist is relevant and important to this debate (an issue Jill still hasn't addressed). A great deal of this article was written by User:Apelbaum on his talk page, and there is evidence to at least suggest that Apelbaum and JillFine are sharing a computer (presumably here which traceroutes to NYC). I will also point out that I have not even "voted" in this matter. At least, not yet. Having taken the time now to examine the article in detail, I will say delete. Many of the "references" are simply patents owned by Apelbaum, or books/articles written by Apelbaum (ie not third party sources, and one even appears to be written by "L.O. Apelbaum" - is that even the same person?). The non-scanned sources that are from third parties are not about Apelbaum - they don't even mention him. The scanned ones may mention him in passing , but they aren't about him - if Apelbaum's significance is only tied to some notable product/software, then he should be mentioned in the article about that product/software (except that this software is also not notable). Writing a new or helpful piece of software is not enough; The relevant guideline requires far more than this to meet notability policy. I've been interviewed in the newspaper once, I write new and helpful software for my job. I could go out and get a patent. I have published works. There are thousands of people who meet these criteria. But they are not the right criteria. --Cheeser1 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: COI shouldn't present a problem (with the article anyways) unless there are POV issues. IMO, the article doesn't have a problem with the NPOV policy. Are you disputing the neutrality of the article? - Rjd0060 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guideline. Having a conflict of interest and writing the majority of this article raise suspicions. Making no edits elsewhere is also suspicious. Contributing to this AfD, referring to how good Apelbaum is at his job and how many primary-source publications he has (instead of discussing many references and how much notability there are - none - the relevant policy) seems due cause to question how this conflict of interest is affecting this user's contribution to the AfD (not her contributions to the article, which are a separate matter). I mean, if there were an article about someone I was friends/coworkers/etc with up for an AfD, I would deliberately abstain from voting, and rightly so. --Cheeser1 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only speaking about her involvement in the article. Being the primary contributor raises suspicions, yes, but that guideline also says "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace". I agree with you as far as her AfD comments are concerned (they should have been very limited if even existent). As a sidenote, you really don't need to be flashing policies and guidelines (especially the same ones) in every comment you leave. Most of us are as familiar (if not more familiar) with these policies/guidelines as you are. - Rjd0060 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aaack! Civility, please! Bolding in that context is dickish in and of itself.--12 Noon 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AND, 71.167.17.249 made substantial edits to the subject's bio, when it was still on his user talk page, and edited Authentication, which was also edited by Apelbaum at around the same time. -- But|seriously|folks  09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung, WP:N and WP:V. Patents are primary sources, not secondary indicators of notability. Also, the author and many of the keep votes are either the same person or various people who all share a WP:COI, so they should not be participating here. -- But|seriously|folks  09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP What is wrong with you people? The notability of this fine, it's in news papers, trade magazines, books, and all over the internet. WP:N is not an issue here. Additionally, we have an experienced writer building a very well written article. I would say delete if it had even a hint of point of view, but that is not the case. Good article! 68.143.88.2 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this is the best looking "stub" article I've ever seen! :) 68.143.88.2 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. Reads like a resume or an advertisement. WP:BIO provides:
The person must have been the subject of published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.[2]
In spite of the great amount of detail in this article, I can't find any independent references that assess Apelbaum's stature as an engineer. It is uncommon to see patents listed in an article, since they don't tell us how the person is regarded within his profession. If this article could be rewritten to meet our standards, with proper sourcing, it is conceivable he would be found notable. As of now, I don't see it. The research to find proper sources is too difficult to expect regular Wikipedia editors to undertake it. The Conflict of Interest issues are troubling, though they don't imply deletion in their own right. EdJohnston 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. This article is starting to make me nervous. I haven't been able to find any of the four books mentioned in the article on amazon.com or worldcat.org (showing that any libraries have them). Their ISBNs, such as 0980000009, sound 'made up'. Conceivably they were never issued by a regular publisher. I am concerned that much of the information in the article is unverifiable. I have noticed that some of the items listed as references for him don't even mention his name. I believe that many of these ought to be removed from the article, and if I thought that other editors here would support that, I would remove to the article's Talk page all the apparent references (such as the books) whose legitimacy can't be established online, or which do not mention his name. For instance the linked PDF file [10] does not say anything about Jacob Apelbaum or a firm called Bright Ideas Software. A Google search for 'bright ideas software chicago' does not find anything. How can we be confident that what is currently in the article is true? EdJohnston 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

edit
You can locate the books in:[11]--Jill Fine 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJ: Excuse my interrupting your posting so my comment would be next to the reference. This URL shows that the books are in Barnes and Noble's catalog, but the screen says that no new copies can be ordered from them. Unfortunately this doesn't give proof that the books ever existed. Maybe there is a link somewhere on a publisher's web site? The ISBNs still look very strange, with so many zeros in them. Do you know who the publisher was? EdJohnston 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It does say on Barnes and Noble that the publisher is 'Technology Press' but I can't find any more information about the publisher. Looking at the ISBNs if they are genuine, they don't seem to have published any other books. Snigbrook 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Jill Fine: The books were originally published in small quantity (250 hard copies) via direct order publisher called Technology Press. After the initial publication, they were converted to e-books, so it doesn’t surprise me that B&N shows no inventory. Regarding the strange structure of the ISBN number, it is pretty common. This usually indicates that a large block of ISBN’s has been purchased by a publisher (most likely for digital media) as this helps insure that they would be able to maintain sequential listing for their media.

I hope this helps.--Jill Fine 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by EdJ: Thanks for the clarification. You can understand that, to us, it looks like these were self-published books, which normally wouldn't be acceptable as references in an article. Also they would not tend to prove the author's notability. Any mention of the books by third parties would help, so even if they were self-published, if there were any printed reviews of the books, that would be worth noting. EdJohnston 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that was what I thought - self-published. The ISBN is in a valid block but only consists of ten numbers ([12]). - Snigbrook 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Posting by Jill Fine resumes here:
Regarding media and secondary sources coverage, the following are the citation:
Shankman, Neal (1996-10-20), "Work on Metra station starts wheels rolling on software program", Chicago Daily Herald, p. 14
and here is the actual article (it is not available on-line, so I uploaded it to backup the citation):
<copyvio deleted

Comment by EdJ: Thanks for this useful information. While the Construction Manager program was helpful to Metra, and did save them some money, it seems to have been contributed by Apelbaum as a volunteer project. There is mention at the end that he hoped to commercialize the program, but no comment as to whether that occurred. EdJohnston 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment buy Jill Fine: I forgot to address your commercialization question. In 1998 several components of the product were sold to [13] the details are governed by an active NDA.--Jill Fine 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Jill Fine: The article doesn’t say contributed or volunteer and there is a clear reference to the product size and value (70,000 lines of VC++ code, and estimated at $250,000. which clearly shows commercial interest). The reason for giving Metra free usage rights was purely strategic (to help with market penetration). Also, Metra and other RTA agencies conducted dozens of large construction projects a year--which would have helped “exercise” the software. This is no different than a traditional beta program where the customer gets “free” evaluation software, but the owner keeps the rights to the product.
Finally, the reason for the carefully worded “took on his spare time” was to eliminate potential claims from the Federal government or other funding agencies which could have claimed ownership to a product that was developed on one of their funded projects ($130 million).
I hope this helps.--Jill Fine 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by EdJ: It is too bad there is an active NDA. An NDA defeats publication, which also defeats the creation of any evidence that is visible to us for the commercial success of the Construction Manager program. Secrecy means you can't write about it, and we can't write about it, because we can't see the evidence. You must be aware that a large, successful software company would make waves and we would perceive that. There is nothing here for us to perceive. EdJohnston 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Posting by Jill Fine resumes here:
finally, here is the official acknowledgment by the Roadmaster’s Association for an outstanding job done by Bright Idea Software of Chicago:
File:Roadmasters and Maintenance of Way Association of America.jpg

--Jill Fine 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? "Where are all the non-trivial reliable third party sources?" Did you even read the article? They are listed throughout the entire thing. The author even uploaded many of them (although they were deleted per copyvio...which is ironic in itself) so we could view them without going to the library. I have a real problem with deletionists; all they do is vote "delete" without ever making any real contributions. The point is to grow the encyclopedia, not slowly delete it. This guy is notable -- give it up! And the article is very well written with reliable sources to back up the claims. 68.143.88.2 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if this is some kind of an inside Wikipedia joke or not, but each time I upload the news articles to show third party source coverage, someone deletes the articles and 2 minutes later there is another posting complaining that there is a lack of third party sources.--Jill Fine 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a joke. As explained to you above, you can't upload other people's text and images because of copyright concerns. Just cite them in the article. But even if they were uploadable, that would not mean that people would have to accept them as reliable sources. -- But|seriously|folks  22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If it is an inside joke, I don't get it either. Jill Fine, if they're scans (which would be most convincing), you can always open an account at Flickr & upload the images there. Otherwise, find a free web host & upload the files there. In either case, once this is done give us a URL to that site. -- llywrch 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't do that. We can't link to copyvios here either per WP:EL. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide the entire source. Just cite it. -- But|seriously|folks  22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) Linking to a copyvio is no different than adding it to this site. Cite the sources, dont upload them. - Rjd0060 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got it. I will only cite my third party sources (which are only in print sinch most are pre 1996) and not upload them. Thanks. --Jill Fine 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have decided to remove the article as the overhead associated with talking about it has grown beyond what my busy schedule permits. It has already consumed more than 8 hours of my time and it looks like there is no end in sight.

My first experience with creating contents in Wikipedia has been a real eye opener. Thanks to all the individuals who provided constructive advice and guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged (WP:CSD#G7). Should result in a speedy close of this debate. - Rjd0060 00:00, 25 October 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Apelbaum&oldid=1136111192"