Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian R. 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Brian R. Banks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Limited notability, an internet search mainly pulls up web pages run by the author himself, or pages selling his books. smileguy91talk - contribs 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP Lousy, promo of an article.  A total mess.   However, a quick search on JSTOR shows that his book The Image of Huysmans was widely reviewed, albeit waaay back before Al Gore invented the internet.  He easily passes WP:AUTHOR.  User talk:Smileguy91, you probaly want to withdraw this AFD and just tag the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are sources on the page (pretty clear form the visible footnote numbers). Creator apparently did not know how to create refs.  Page needs someone ot fix the notes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There are more reviews of this book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now and draft and userfy instead as my searches simply found nothing better than that one JSTOR link and that only suggests instead that the book is notable but perhaps not him (??). I would've also said keep only if the article was actually going to be improved though. SwisterTwister   talk  08:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * Antosh, R. B.. (1992). [Review of The Image of Huysmans]. Nineteenth-century French Studies, 21(1/2), 239–240. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23533410
 * Cevasco, G. A.. (1992). [Review of The Image of Huysmans]. The Modern Language Review, 87(3), 756–757. http://doi.org/10.2307/3733003
 * Knapp, Bettina L.. 1993. Review of The Image of Huysmans. The French Review 66 (3). American Association of Teachers of French: 510–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/397460.
 * Weak delete/merge/rewrite into the book's article. One of his books got several academic reviews. This probably means that the book is notable, but I don't see why this would extend to him (notability is not inherited). Yes, there's CREATIVE 4c: ""The person's work (c) has won significant critical attention". Are several reviews in academic press sufficient? Perhaps. It's very borderline. I'd rather suggest this is rewritten into an article about a book, which could have a section about its otherwise unnotable author. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I would say this meets CREATIVE 4c as mentioned above with the multiple academic reviews. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete His book The Image of Huysmans is notable under #1 of WP:NBOOKS. I see no real coverage of him, especially in those academic reviews. Four reviews of one book do not create "significant critical attention".  Continued discussion in reliable sources of the ideas presented and citation may. (GoogleScholar shows a whopping twelve citations to the book.) He has not had that kind of impact and has not won significant critical attention and thus fails 4c of WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- My impression was of very limited notability. However this is not my field of expertise, so I am not formally voting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There are sources, but they are clearly inadequate to provide verifiability for the content of the article. For example, cite [1] fails to verify the biographical information the precedes it. [2] is a reference to his book, which should not be a reference but in a bibliography section [3] is a review of his book, but possibly not about him [4] points to a symposium he spoke at, not a third-party source [5] presumably is a link to another book of his but it's unclear, in any case, not RS [6] is to liner notes that he wrote, not RS. So we've really got nothing about him. The book itself is cited all of 12 times in G-Scholar, held in about 250 libraries in Worldcat. Not an entirely bad showing, but nothing that would save this article. LaMona (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not seeing enough independent coverage of the author to show that he passes WP:GNG, and doesn't qualify under WP:NAUTHOR either. LaMona's and Bejnar's analyses, in particular, are pretty spot on.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. If the book is notable then write an article about it and redirect this there; authors do not inherit notability from their notable books. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2016 (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.