Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Banks

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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Banks[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AusLondonder with the following rationale "definitely not suitable for prod, seems to meet notability requirements". Well, please explain how he meets that. I don't see much coverage; appearing in one TV show does not seem to cut it, not unless it would generate coverage itself, which I do not see. All other sources seem to mention him in passing, or are not independent/reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE (not a valid argument). You have to explain how it does that. I say it does not, and I did explain myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While this businessperson is a bit notable, it looks like he's pretty much known just for his association with more notable things-- such as the TV show in which he appeared-- rather than for his own actions. In the spirit of the general Wikipedia guidelines on notability, I feel like this article probably should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. On the basis of him being one of the regular panel on Shark Tank (Australian TV series). Although the article is so filled with puffery that it might be better to TNT it and start over. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andreas Philopater: And being a said regular makes him notable because it is supported by which of our policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has a recurring role on national TV in a show that garners repeated media commentary.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Andreas Philopater: Ah, in that case we are good, just please link to said repeated media commentary on him (if it is on the show it does not count - notability is not inheritable by association). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: I think that's where the "before" part of the deletion process comes in: you should have done that yourself already.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Andreas Philopater: Nope, you fail to understand this project policies. I looked, I found nothing worthwhile. Now you have to provide links to save this spam, then we will discuss their quality. Saying that they exist and not bothering to link them is not a valid or helpful argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Piotrus: I think you should have a read of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you think I have to do anything at all. You put this article up for discussion and I foolishly assumed that meant you wanted people's opinions. I Googled the man's name in combination with "Shark" (otherwise you get lots of irrelevant hits to wade through), and I saw coverage of him specifically, in his capacity as "Shark" (or using that to identify him to readers), in the Sydney Morning Herald and other major news publications. It was enough for me to offer a (weak) "keep" opinion, but I don't care enough about the outcome to want to do it a second time just so you don't have to. What worries me a good deal more is your gladiatorial and rather pestering pinging of me for proffering an opinion that you don't share. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry I am wasting your time asking for your opinion, I will not ping you anymore per your request. Since you couldn't be bothered linking the article you found, I had to spend my time recreating your search. I did find [1], which discusses him for several paragraphs in the Private Syndey celebrity column. While it is a reliable source, it is the first one we found, and we do require multiple (2+) reliable, in-depth sources. Also, there's the WP:ONEEVENT problem, suggesting that he is better of being mentioned on the show's page then in a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep as although sourcing could be better, this seems notable and like any of the American "sharks" of Shark Tank. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 23 September 2015 (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.