Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benn Banasik

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Banasik

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

A Non-notable local government politician. The subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN in that he has not "held international, national or first-level sub-national political office". The sources are all either community newspapers, not independent of the subject (MACROC and myspace) or not specifically about the subject. Mattinbgn\^talk 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POLITICIAN lists cases where notability is automatic, but failure to meet those automatic criteria does prove non-notability. In this case, I consider that the references are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Community newspapers are reliable sources, as is the Australian Financial Review .-- Eastmain (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If community newspapers are relaible source, then every local government councillor (and General Manager) in NSW will be considered notable (not to mention every local football player etc.). There is zero evidence that the subject is any more than locally notable and zero evidence that his notability (such as it is) extends any further than the local council area. The community newspapers may be reliable sources for WP:V purposes but in no way can they be used to establish wider notability. The AFR article (behind a subscription wall and therefore I can't read most of it) seems to be about the concept of working from home rather than Mr Banasik, although he is used as an example. I fail to see how that can possible establish notability (unless being an "extreme commuter" makes one notable). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator does not deny that subject meets the GNG, and does not make a case for an exception from the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, yes he does when he talks about the subject being only in local press etc. Though he doesn't specifically mention the GNG his point clearly addresses them. If you disagree over the interpretation of whether 'local' sources can be used to show notability then that is a different question. Quantpole (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly a very minor local politician, despite some newspaper coverage. If he were included, hundreds of thousands of minor Australian politicans could be too.--Grahame (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability guideline states: "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles" I don't see that here. Cited sources show that he is a minor local councillor and thus not notable, missing WP:POLITICIAN by a mile. Valenciano (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, while there are a few odds and bobs about him in local community papers, there's nothing particularly in depth or non-routine, as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Whilst Benn Banasik may be only a local politician there are alot of references online and I was intending to create pages for all of the local political identities in the Macarthur region, I am happy however to go with the consensus. Macarthur2011 ^{(speak to me)}
Delete Not a notable career in any ordinary sense. The embarrassing fact (for us) that he does meet the GNG can be solved in one of two ways: defining community newspapers as not RSs for notability, or accepting that notability is a property of the subject, not the sources. The current practice is to do the first rather than deal with the complications of the second-- I think it's artificial, and will be shown more and more to be artificial once more local papers are online in GNews. Whether we decide by what i think is rational or by manipulating RS, he's not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per DGG Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN Secret ^account 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Very much per Lankiveil, Valenciano, DGG etc. I actually came upon this article while trying to fix cruft in another article, and yes, he's very local. Orderinchaos 19:50, 5 September 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.