- 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. Davewild ( talk) 06:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Michael Banks (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article Rayman60 ( talk) 14:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Michael Banks (journalist)
- Delete The two sources are physics world, which does not from the link obviously even mention Banks, and an article by Banks. While aarticles written by the subject can be useful as sources, they cannot be used to show the subject is notable, especially as the only such source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not provide evidence of notability and I did not see any elsewhere. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete:- Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete to be notable, a journalist, and/or his work, has to be covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete He is not notable as a physicist or as a journalist. Maybe one day but not right now. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 19 July 2015 (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.
- 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. Davewild ( talk) 06:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Michael Banks (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article Rayman60 ( talk) 14:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Michael Banks (journalist)
- Delete The two sources are physics world, which does not from the link obviously even mention Banks, and an article by Banks. While aarticles written by the subject can be useful as sources, they cannot be used to show the subject is notable, especially as the only such source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not provide evidence of notability and I did not see any elsewhere. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete:- Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete to be notable, a journalist, and/or his work, has to be covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete He is not notable as a physicist or as a journalist. Maybe one day but not right now. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 19 July 2015 (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.