Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicoye 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoye Banks[edit]

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

With but minor roles in a few (albeit "notable") films and a role of uncertain scope on "One Life to Live", the subject fails to meet the notability requirement set forth at Wikipedia:Bio#Entertainers. NB - the page was created by the subject's personal manager and many, if not most, of Google hits relating to the subject can be traced back to PR efforts rather than reliable 3d party coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the information I can find is obvious PR puff, e.g. claiming he "co-starred" in things where he had a minor role. And IMDb doesn't show that he was ever in One Life to Live. Also, he tweets in block capitals; that's never a plus. Seriously though, he may make it big in the future, but so far he hasn't had the "significant roles" or "large fan base" we're looking for. --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OBJECT to DELETION; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the average reasonable person can look at Nicoye Banks' credits and judge for his/herself. If one performs a Google search for "Nicoye Banks" (s)he would find this result: http://www.google.com/search?q=nicoye+banks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Contrary to the above stated assertion, by "Glenfarclas," that "most of the information [found] is obvious pr puff," the Google search reflects a long list (35 + pages) of third-party sites that acknowledge Nicoye Banks credits., including IMDB, and other blogs, internet magazines, etc. where interviews and celebrity photos can be found. There can be no question that Nicoye Banks has had, and continues to have, "significant," roles in movies and stage performances. Two more feature films are scheduled for release in March of 2010. Green Zone - (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1072565/news) with Matt Damon. Notice the IMDB link clearly states that "The film stars Matt Damon, Jason Isaacs, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan, Antoni Corone and Nicoye Banks. . . . " AND 2. Brooklyn's Finest where Nicoye Banks plays a supporting role.

I could go on, but it doesn't seem necessary. However, what would help anyone, including myself, in his/her judgment of this particular submission would be an actual definition for the words "significant" and "notable." - Taken from the following " Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

The word "multiple" seems clear as the word is generally understood to mean more than 1.

Please Note: I am the management representative for Nicoye Banks. Unlike many editors on Wikipedia, I do not hide the fact that I may be affiliated in some way with the person/thing being mentioned, rather, I unabashedly disclose my affiliation, because any information I provide is factual and credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Precious few of those Google hits to blogs, fansites and the like reflect coverage by the kind of notable and reliable sources that imply notability. What's more, if you follow a few of the links you'll find that either 1) their coverage is trivial - a listing or a mention in passing; or 2) they seem to derive from the same source (namely, Banks's publicists). I credit them for doing their job well, but good promo work doesn't confer notability. Banks may have some meatier roles coming, but roles in the yet-to-be-released films cannot sensibly be evaluated until the films are actually released. JohnInDC (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - - - I welcome and appreciate the challenges to Nicoye Banks' qualifications for Wikipedia inclusion, however, overall, this is becoming laughable. There is clearly more information to support the fact that Nicoye Banks meets the stated requirements for Entertainers to have a Wikipedia article than the scant proposed assertions otherwise. Other individuals, and I, are still waiting for the definitions of the words "significant" and "notable." I think it's easy to see the 3rd party sites that acknowledge Nicoye Banks' credits. Notice the 2 individuals so vehemently opposed to the article on Nicoye Banks can not challenge the validity or existence of 35+ pages of results for the Google search "Nicoye Banks." (let me assure you that NO ONE has 35+ pages worth of Google search results if that person is not doing "notable" things on "multiple" occasions). "JohnInDc" and "Glenfarclas" would rather attempt to discredit the 3rd party sources. . . .35+ pages worth. . . . by stating that "they seem to derive from the same source (namely Blanks' publicists)." While language for a few articles (less than 1 page worth) may have originated with Nicoye Banks' publicists (what "noteworthy" actor doesn't have a publicist? which further underscores my point), I feel confident stating that upwards of 95% of those sites' information is provided by 3rd party sources not affiliated with Nicoye Banks. (i.e. film studios, producers, production company/studio public relations, individual investigation).

"JohnInDc'" and "Glenfarclas'" campaign to delete the article on Nicoye Banks could be better appreciated if we knew these individuals' role and/or connection with the Wikipedia site. Furthermore, it would help if we understood "JohnInDc'" and "Glenfarclas'" individual and/or collective definition of the words "significant" and "notable." And finally, these individuals' comments could have more credibility if either one could give more personal knowledge to back up their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Raymbala (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: just to be clear, having hits on places like IMDb confirms that someone exists, not that he is necessarily notable. IMDb catalogues pretty much everybody who has ever contributed in any way to any film or TV show, no matter how minor. And while I can't speak for JohnInDC, I'm doing my best to follow the definition of "notable" given at WP:N and all the subsidiary guidelines like WP:ENTERTAINER. --Glenfarclas (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any sources that disucss the subject's work. The source quoted in the article just confirms that he will be in a film. If sources can be produced that actually discuss his work as an actor then I would be prepared to reconsider but at the moment he doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines in my opinion. Mah favourite (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (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.