Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Banks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. The claims of notability in the article are not supported by reliable sources. The subject's book is self-published by iUniverse, making the Amazon and B&N listings useless, and the two sources cited in the article do not support the point they are cited for. Note also the multiple "Keep" votes by User:216.80.113.228, a single-purpose account. NawlinWiki 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul M. Banks

Paul M. Banks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject is not notable. KenWalker | Talk 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Fulbright fellowship; has appeared on Comcast Sports Net, ESPN Radio and the Sporting News Radio; work has appeared in FOX, CBS, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, 670 The Score, and Midwest Book Review; runs a webzine. Sounds pretty notable to me. Passes WP:BIO -- except there are very few sources. Better sources are needed here, and must be out there if this list is accurate. Also there is lots of trivia and unencyclopedic writing here, but that is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. DES (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with serious sources and clean-up. --Stormbay 03:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep subject is notable. Capmango 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First, I have to disagree with DES that this person even sounds notable. Having a Fulbright fellowhip, having appeared on those networks, having submitted work to those media outlets, and running a webzine (anyone can found one, and this one claims to have an editorial staff of seven) are not necessarily indicators that the person is the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources that we can use to write a neutral, verifiable Wikipedia article. And when claims like these are part of an autobiographical-sounding article like this, one has to wonder if the claims to notability are even verifiable. For example, I can find no evidence that his book Resume was "received favorably by both the University of Illinois and Loyola media as well as being the focal point of a feature article in his hometown newspaper."[1][2][3]. His webzine (with its editorial staff of seven) has been non-trivially noted by no one.[4] The article doesn't specify what kind of work he submitted to those media outlets, but anyway most anyone who submits work to media outlets will not be the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. And there is no sign from the rest of the article that M. Banks is the subject of such sources, because the claims to notability appear not to be independently verifiable. The article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. Pan Dan 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Pan Dan here. Although someone has gone to a lot of effort to bring together what's been written about him, the results are extraordinarily thin. (I wonder whether there shouldn't be WP:Not a scrapbook for minor figures' press clippings.) semper fictilis 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI I've WP:PRODed Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Pan Dan 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Subject is notable and sounds very accomplished. I have to strongly disagree with the user who wrote that this entry sounds autobiographical. Also, so few people are actually awarded Fulbright fellowships and/or appear on ESPN, that the rarity of those accomplishments warrants keeping it. Especially considering that the subject has done both. I also agree that this article needs cleanup and sourcing. I'd say keep and significantly clean up this entry—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs)
  • keep but edit/delete the unencyclopedic parts of this entry. the non-professional and personal sounding information should be cut—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs)
  • keep found a source. subjects appearance on ESPN Radio Milwaukee can be foudn and downloaded here http://sportsandpopculturebank.com/aboutthewebsite.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs)
  • FYI #2, Sports and Pop Culture Bank has been deprodded. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports and Pop Culture Bank. Pan Dan 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep As the writer of the article, I can tell you that Paul did not write it I did. I am one of the staff of seven on the growing website. Paul is a published author, Fullbright scholar, and a multimedia journalist in the 3rd largest media market in the U.S. I can clean things up and post more of his bylines as sources if necessary, but to say that Paul is not notable is ridiculous. Anderspc 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The great thing about judging notability on Wikipedia is that we've got a standard that is simple and objective. We don't have to argue about whether all the attributes you list (which remain unverified by the way) make a person notable. We just have to check whether there are any non-trivial, reliable, 3rd party sources about him. If you know of any such sources, please provide them. Pan Dan 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are found. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Keep it, but delete the stuff about his interests, hobbies, and crushes. keep the media stuff, which is verified with two sources at the end of the page, but get rid of the personal material—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs)
    • The two sources at the bottom of the page don't verify any of the content of the article. Pan Dan 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep here's the subject of the article's book listed for sale on amazon as well as barnes and noble entry. both pages list reviews which match up with the information listed in the entry. Under accreditation on the Barnes and Noble Page, you'll see pretty much the same information about the subject's media appearances that is listed in this entry

http://www.amazon.com/Resume-Paul-Max-Banks/dp/0595320872/ref=sr_1_1/103-7456818-9299813?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184024353&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0595320872/sr=8-1/qid=1184024353/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-7456818-9299813?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1184024353&sr=8-1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595320875&z=y

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595664771&z=y#ACC

  • Keep per 4 sources above me Giggy UCP 04:25, 10 July 2007 (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.