Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Banner


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Adam Banner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable lawyer lacking non-trivial support. Article "references" are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject. Advertisement for non-notable subject. red dogsix (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article for a lawyer lacking notable citations/references.Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Dean Esmay (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG.


 * Notability is a nuanced thing. Wikipedia shouldn’t be defined by the lowest common denominator but by the same token there has to be a baseline and I would like to thank red dogsix for clarifying that.


 * He lists all the references where one could expect to find a notable person and lo and behold, there the subject is, not just once but many times:


 * News - 93 results -


 * Scholar - 26 results and Books


 * reference 56 from Washburn law and also cited in this book
 * Also cited in this book about reproductive ethics.


 * Cited on page 1 of this article while also Reference 146 here


 * Highbeam - 3 results -


 * The claim that the Article "references" are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject showcases a basic lack of knowledge when it comes to the legal field.


 * For as viewed above, a single line mention doesn't mean that it is any less notable if it is from a respected legal journal, newspaper, website, or published book. The only "reference" cited that doesn't mention "the article subject" are discussing published cases that has the subject’s name on them with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which surely are reliable, non-trivial sources. That is how legal commentary on cases works most of the time: commentators talk about and comment on the case and the law, not the person who argued, briefed, and won the case. They care about the law, not the person who changed it. Its academic. Moreover, the "articles written by the subject" are exactly what establishes the notability. How many "non-notable subject" lawyers have their opinions and their commentary cited by, and explained in, the Washington Post?


 * The subject has been cited and discussed in two different Law Review Journals, he has been cited and discussed on notable sites, he has been cited and discussed in a 2016 published book on domestic abuse. He has sued the state of Oklahoma 9 time for injunctions! If being cited in government databases (OSCN/ODCR), published legal opinions, major law journals, national and local news coverage, a published book written by someone else, etc aren’t reliable sources, than what is?


 * In terms of a legal commentator, the subject has been asked to comment on the news for his opinion not once, not twice but many many times


 * http://okcfox.com/archive/apartment-complex-debuts-program-to-crack-down-on-dog-feces
 * http://okcfox.com/archive/chesapeake-vs-american-energy-partners
 * http://kfor.com/2014/10/29/residents-upset-attorney-accused-of-child-sex-trafficking-works-in-their-neighborhood/
 * http://kfor.com/2015/01/06/district-attorney-seeks-death-penalty-in-stillwater-near-beheading-case/
 * http://kfor.com/2015/01/27/rep-sally-kern-defends-bills-aimed-at-gay-community-despite-widespread-criticism/
 * http://kfor.com/2015/03/10/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-sae-students-expelled-from-ou/
 * http://kfor.com/2015/03/17/secretary-of-finance-pleads-not-guilty-to-alcohol-related-charge/
 * http://kfor.com/2015/05/28/technicality-could-force-drug-charges-to-be-dropped-in-multiple-oklahoma-counties/
 * http://kfor.com/2015/08/18/pardon-and-parole-board-plan-would-allow-non-violent-offenders-chance-for-early-release/


 * According to WP:ANYBIO, People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
 * The subject has been named one of the top 100 trial lawyers in Oklahoma for 5 years running now (2013-2017).


 * The subject has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - the Luster case is a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record: in the field of criminal defense and sex offender registration laws and reform.


 * Could a better job of displaying this notability been done in the first place? Yes
 * Could the language be improved? Yes
 * Based on the evidence above, does the subject deserve a place here - Yes Billsimmons7 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.


 * Comment - What the above fails to recognize is Wikipedia notability does not equal "real-world" notability. The fact still remains the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject."  Your comment that the application of Wikipedia criteria "showcases a basic lack of knowledge when it comes to the legal field,"   does nothing to show how the subject meets the Wikipedia criteria. You keep pointing to the subject's work as if it creates Wikipedia notability, but it does not.     red dogsix (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - You claim one thing and when that is rebutted, you move the goalposts of the discussion because you are clearly skewed towards the page being deleted and want that to happen via any argument which will achieve this. Based on Wikipedia's own notability criteria, notability was showcased and the subject actually has more Wikipedia notability than real life notability. If you are truly impartial about this discussion and the future of this page, why not work with me on the language and the various citations to have this page up?Billsimmons7 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.


 * Comment - I have changed nothing in my reasoning for removal and your rebuttal lacks substance per Wikipedia criteria. I have no interest in the deletion or inclusion of the article - my only interest is the applcation of Wikipedia criteria.  Regardless of what you think, you have failed to provide adequate support for inclusion.  Feel free to continue to review the Wikipedia criteria and improve the article.   red dogsix</i> (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment For what it's worth, deleted what could be construed as promotional language.Billsimmons7 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have seen very few, if any articles nominated for deletion with this many citations and sources. That itself does not guarantee a place here on Wikipedia but I was swayed by what the editor wrote here. He found additional high quality sources. The editor clearly put a lot of time into the research and the writing of it. While aspects of it may need to be cleaned up, it should stay. Kelly97 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.
 * Delete - The problem here is not the quantity of sources, but the quality. What I was able to find - and what is cited previously in this discussion - are not focused on him. They mention him along with a case he is defending or he is quoted as part of a story on something related to law. The coverage needs to be more focused on him in order to establish notability. Because there are merely mentions and quotes he would fail WP:GNG in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * *Comment- In the legal industry, entertainment/sports agent business, people are notable based on who/what they represent. A lawyer can be a nobody but they represent a celebrity and by association they're notable. Thus it would flow-on that the citations are not focused on the lawyer themself but more so, the client/case. Kelly97 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.


 * Comment - Unfortunately, in the Wikipedia world, "real-world" notability has little or no bearing. Notability is a function of the criteria in WP:N.  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per arguments citing the quality of the sources. There's every chance that the subject of this article will become Wikipedia-notable down the line (he's still reasonably young, after all), but right at the moment he's just not there as yet. While I'm sympathetic to the claim that time and effort expended should influence an article's fate, that's just not how things work around here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep While on their own, these sources are not focused on him, together, they account for enough influence and notability to justify this article's existance.  Flag  Flayer  11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.


 * Comment- If the reference is not focused on him, then it cannot support notability of the article subject.  Simply put notability is mot inherited.   red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment What do you make of a page such as Mark_M._Baker where the content is next to minimal and apart from the web profile there is a single citation which is barely to do with him, but the case he was working on. He is definitely notable because of the clients he represented but is he Wikipedia notable? That page would appear to be more of an advertisement than this one. Kelly97 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.


 * Comment - Haven't looked at it. It has no bearing in this discussion -  other stuff exists.  If you feel the article does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, feel free to nominate for deletion.   red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject easily exceeds the notability criteria. My bigger concern from all this is behavior of the nominating editor. Claims to have no interest per say in whether this page stays or goes but every single time there is a comment in favor of it staying, he has the need to retort it. It is clear that no matter what people say in favor, he will reject. This is a clear indication of bias on this editors part against the subject and seems to verge on online bullying. Cpenderbrook (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suggest if you feel my actions are inappropriate, you use WP:ANI to report my specific actions. Your comments do not take into consideration WP:AGFand could be assumed to be WP:UNCIVIL.  You state, "every single time there is a comment in favor of it staying, he has the need to retort it."  What specifically is the issue with providing an opinion that is contrary to an editor's comment.  Are you saying you do not welcome an opinion contrary to the statements?  This is hardly bullying. Please be specific in outlining any bullying I have engaged in.


 * You state the article meets notability criteria, but that is all you state, you do not state how. One can say anything they wish, but without support is is just a statement lacking facts.  The fact still remains the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject."  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Due to WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I have never contributed to a delete discussion before but this one is so fascinating I felt compelled to say something. It goes to the very heart of what Wikipedia is, isn't, should and shouldn't be. The fact that anyone can update Wikipedia is why it's so wonderful and also why it can be so dangerous. The editors do a fantastic job of protecting the site from vandals and spammers and maintaining the integrity of the site. Here I can honestly see both sides of the coin - I can get why one would say delete and I can also see the keep side. So why am I voting keep? Because a lawyer is different to people in other industries. I also agree with what User:FlagFlayer wrote but it's more than that. It actually reminds me a bit of the Judgment_of_Solomon. The author asked the editor who wanted to delete if they could work together to make the article acceptable to him. This was basically rebuffed. Since then, he has repeated his opinion to delete not once but many times. He's a great editor who is responsible for cleaning up a lot of junk pages on Wikipedia so isn't a bad guy. He stumbled across this page and slapped a WP:A7 on it and was on his way. This got reverted but he hasn't been able to let it go. For someone who said I have no interest in the deletion or inclusion of the article his non-stop commenting make this statement difficult to believe. TC99 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.


 * Comment - In spite of all the superciliously comments, not one has addressed the fact that still remains, the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject." red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * *Comment - Q.E.D. TC99 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.
 * Comment - Thank you, Mr. Shipman. 8-)  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Billsimmons7, FlagFlayer, and TC99 are ✅ sock puppets of Kelly97. See Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: Per WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and others, as a promotional BLP about a local lawyer that lacks references, among the many supplied, advancing notability. Refbombing local trivial court cases as an attorney, that I could not even find nationally listed in the top 50 of his field, and local commentaries and opinion pieces as an author, does not establish notability. The many loaded words of "greatness" is puffery, as well as original research. GNG states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.". Some of the content can only be understood by someone privy to information not supplied in the references. The policy on Verifiability states "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made".


 * Along with the collection of none-encyclopedia content and vague references this article screams "fancruft". Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage is not enough to show he is a notable lawyer. We would want either indepth coverage in the local press, preferrably articles that meet clear standards of reliability and neutralness, or some coverage in non-local publications. What we seem to get is passing mention in relations to cases in the local press. Works by him can not be used for this. He might also pass the notability for academics. However there is no show that his work has been looked to and cited sufficiently for him to meet academic point 1, and no way he could meet any other. He does not pass any notability criteria and the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (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.