Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett King (author)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Brett King (author)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Recreation of deleted material; fails WP:N, clear Self-promotion. The article on this person was first deleted through this AfD, in a discussion resplendent with sockpuppetry and SPA accounts. It was recreated and deleted again through this AfD. Now Brett King has been recreated yet again and directed here. Because of this ongoing pattern, the pattern of behavior by these editors, their sockpuppets, and their business rivals and their sockpuppets, I recommend that this article (with various capitalization) be salted. See, for example, previous AfDs listed above and the history and talk page of American Academy of Financial Management.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  RJC  TalkContribs 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  --  RJC  TalkContribs 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  --  RJC  TalkContribs 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP I think this article deserves a stay of execution. I think past behavior is implied in the AAFM dispute, but the end result is that it appears the accusations made by King in the history of the AAFM article dispute have now become public knowledge in the nominated Wall Street Journal article, so his assertions, although controversial are now established fact. Despite the apparent history in the dispute of the AAFM issue, I think the following independent references and reviews show strong WP:NPOV support through neutral third-party sources and independent reviews (generally extremely positive) as follows:
 * American Bankers Association - http://www.ababj.com/hidden-page/takeaways-from-brett-king-s-bank-2.0.html
 * AMERICAN BANKER magazine - http://www.americanbanker.com/btn_issues/23_6/u.s.-banks-are-losing-the-tech-creativity-war-1020119-1.html
 * BANK SYSTEMS & TECH magazine - http://www.banktech.com/business-intelligence/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226700290
 * Boston Globe - http://www.boston.com/yourtown/dedham/articles/2010/09/11/citizens_bank_debuts_cafe_style_branch/
 * Radio 938 Singapore - http://www.938live.sg/Podcast/MDC100503-0000025/Brett_King
 * Information Age - http://www.information-age.com/channels/information-management/features/1290938/book-review-bank-20.thtml
 * Just Means (UK) - http://www.justmeans.com/Bank-2-0-Future-of-Banking/26689.html
 * Jim Marous (USA) - http://jimmarous.blogspot.com/2010/07/bank-20-is-bank-marketer-must-read.html
 * Blue Coin (Netherlends) - http://www.bluecoin.nl/blog/2-banking/13-book-review-bank-20-by-brett-king
 * Meterand - http://metarand.com/2010/10/18/bank-2-0-how-behavior-is-fundamentally-driving-change/
 * As a fan/reader of the book, maybe I am considered biased in this, but I guess that adds to my support for the keep recommendation as this author has a credible story and the independent resources support this article regardless of User:RJC feelings in this matter after his involvement in the dispute over the AAFM article Richard Snoots (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. These links show that Mr. King is just as notable as he was the last time he was deleted, viz. that he is quoted in the press but does not have significant coverage. The fact that a book was reviewed online by minor sources (or even major sources) does not suffice for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. The only prominent news organization listed above (the Boston Globe) does not have an article on King or his book; instead, he is quoted. The article itself does no better in establishing notability, and has the hallmarks of puffery. For example, the citation to support the book's being a bestseller is a camera-phone photo of a bookshelf at Singapore bookstore, taken by none other than Mr. King himself. A Google Scholar search reveals no reviews of the book (which calls into question the quality of venues containing the reviews above), a WorldCat search shows it held by only 15 libraries, while Google News returns only five links, and three of those are errors (e.g., "the Bank's 2.0% target"). The book was not "featured" in the ABA journal, as the article suggests; rather, King was interviewed alongside another author, and his book was mentioned in that context. As with the last AfD, verifying that he exists is different from establishing notability.  RJC  TalkContribs 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability guidelines, the sources provided Richard Snoots (corrected! apologies to nom), are either trivial or unreliable. Being quoted in the press, by WP:RS standards, is not enough to meet WP:N criteria.--res Laozi speak  02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for clarity's sake, I'm the nominator: I'm not !voting keep. I suppose my remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Just as notable as he was last time ... when he wasn't notable enough for an article.  RJC  TalkContribs 05:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I apologise, I meant Richard Snoots. Completely my fault there, mixed up his name with your's, and saw your comment as a continuation of his. :) --res Laozi speak  05:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  RJC  TalkContribs 18:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I've looked for sources and can find next to nothing that meets WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2010 (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.