Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe 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 was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Banister[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Banister is the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, notable only for his tax avoidance charges. A Google search of "Joe Banister" makes this especially clear. Subject has no sustained coverage and doesn't meet the GNG. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:ONEEVENT, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Accordingly, seeing the event rolled for years (sigcov available even in 2016, when the even occured in 2004-2005) and had the event sequences seemed significant, leaning for keep. Chirota (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it’s SIGCOV at all. The materials you mention from 2016 are directly cited primary materials (court documents)—that isn't significant coverage. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to lasting notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 01:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim to lasting notability. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources like court documents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2021 (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.