Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Banister

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 delete; besides the arguments presented, if this was not written by the contributor, this article would constitute a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Banister

autobio or PR effort, not sufficiently notable Lunkwill 09:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Not sufficiently notable (CEO, written a book), also appears to be an autobiography/PR article. (I'm also putting up Enginet, which appears to be a trademarked service, but in the context presented is a neologism invented in this author's book). Lunkwill 09:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Notable enough for mine. Written a book see [1] which has been reviewed. He seems to be invited to speak at forums and be interviewed see [2]

Capitalistroadster 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity page. [139] distinct google hits most of which are bios from promo engagements. Book is also nn. If this is kept, it must be cleaned up and have noisome POV content like: heir to the legacy of both Marshall McLuhan and Joseph Campbell removed. I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here and he's never heard of him.... Eusebeus 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because I can't stop laughing. MuLuhan says Banister doesn't understand his work at all. Gamaliel 07:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• (Jim posted this on my User page, but has now posted his own reply below along with his vote) Lunkwill-- I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly... responding to your nomimation for deletion of my biography entry. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate forum. I was encouraged to post on wikipedia (which i use and love, btw) by professor colleagues, students I've taught, and a number of others who use wikipedia. It wasn't written by me, though it was posted by me. And it's hardly vanity. Everything in the narrative is veracious. I'm not sure I understand how one "qualifies" to be an wiki writer. Seems self-selecting, at best; and I'd think that as long as information is verifiable and not overtly "marketing," then it should be okay. The writer didn't know how to post... I did... and the article was not written in a vacuum. It was patterned off of existing, approved articles. I'm happy to provide you any number of references to support the veracity of the information, and I'd appreciate you not deleting the bio. Cumulusguy 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Cumulusguy 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I'm frankly surprised at the vitriol from a couple of you. If you're going to review, please do, but do your homework. The cursory opinions as to the content of my character or thought-leadership are not informed, nor helpful.

Gentlemen, I didn't write the article, but I did post it. Why is it a transgression to endeavor to see one's work recognized and recorded for posterity? The information is completely accurate-- every word-- whether or not one agrees with the editorial. It is ironic that most of the (written) objection is around the references to McLuhan and Campbell. I suggested the writer use the entries for those two great thinkers as a template for how to write/post in wikipedia. I suggested them as exemplary not because I feel I belong in their pantheon-tier, but because they are two role-model thinkers I have studied and admired. The words heir to the legacy of both Marshall McLuhan and Joseph Campbell were not written nor suggested by me. They are paraphrased words spoken by my students and audiences. If they offend you, my apologies. It is an aspiration I continue to pursue, and if you'd read my book or attended one of my lectures, you might even agree. Furthermore, I see the word "promo" in some of the comments below. I don't sell my book, nor my services at my lectures. My lectures are designed for erudition, not revenue.

If necessary, I'm pleased to provide recommendations from many "notable" folks as to the legitimacy of the information, the deservedness of the posting, and the veracity of my efforts to add to the body of knowledge around digital media literacy.

If I was *truly* being self-promotional... I would have included links to the world-wide press on the breakthrough hybrid tv-game project I created and I'm doing with Ron Howard and Fox (airing next year), or posted more than just a link to the Hollywood Reporter's 75th Anniversary Future of Entertainment edition which decided my work was deserving enough to single-out on the cover alongside only four others-- Neil Gaimon, George Lucas, Jim Cameron and HBO's Chris Albrecht. But I didn't. I stuck to the tuition aspects of what I do-- educate others on all I've learned so that they have the leg-up I didn't have. They can decide for themselves whether my thought leadership is worthy of following. If you think writing books designed for tuition is a money-making proposition, then you've never written and published such a book. ;-)

Anonymous insults and cursory reviews should not be the order of the day in wikipedia. That is not my understanding of the spirit of this body-of-work. If you're really going to review, then please do your homework. I was careful to read the guidelines for posting bios, and I believe we've adhered faithfully to them. If you'd like to be more specific about what exactly you object to, I'm happy to consider editing to suit the majority of reviewers. Many thanks. Jim Banister

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.