Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bangs

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 no consensus to delete. Discounting the SPA/IP !votes, the remaining participation by established editors still clearly falls short of consensus for deletion. A reasonable case has been made that sources show the subject to have aggregate notability over his several fields of activity. BD2412 T 03:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Bangs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to be self-promotion by a non-notable author of self-published books Seaweed (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "non-notable ... self-published" - call him an alternative activist, anarchist, anything you like, he's not going to go to the "popular press" to get his books sponsored and published, he has unequivocal views on the capitalist state, so practises what he preaches - self-published, of course, how else is he to get the word out, like, most recently over the sad fate of the Low Weald and its exploitation by developers? (PB)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admirable work, but being mentioned or quoted in several articles isn't sufficient to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG; I don't see any strong depth-of-coverage in third party sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a person who does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, which is what he would need to pass to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you are in danger of falling into the establishment trap, why such a formulaic approach to assessing the quality of a listing, based on conservative, traditional principles? (PB)
Keep David Bangs might not meet the notability criteria for academics, but Bangs has other notable roles, such as a field naturalist, campaigner and public artist which has been covered in other sources. His mention in The Ecologist has a good level of detail for instance. His latest book has been reviewed five times, including in an academic journal and a national newspaper. His other books have also been cited in a PhD thesis. The fact his books were self-published doesn't matter as it has been critically engaged with. The tone of the piece can be amended. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's quite an endorsement and impressive for an outsider in this pure academic world, the fact that this atypical individual, diverging from the "accepted norms of society" has these reviews should be recognised. (PB)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to my talk page where User:Paolo.oprandi has provided more information this article. (Most of the David Bangs article has been written by Paolo.oprandi.) Seaweed (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite a prominent local ecologist/activist, David Bangs' books are however self-published and his coverage in even local media is incidental. While I admire his environmentalism and stance and note the candour and AGF of User:Paolo.oprandi, I feel Mr Bangs does not pass WP:GNG. I'd have voted to draftify, but having searched I'd say there aren't enough RS mentions out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's not "quite" a prominent local activist, he is one in a very small band at the vanguard of critical strategic local and regional issues, indeed only last month (April 2021) he was the grit in the oyster, the spanner in the works to try and thwart the city council's attempts to control our public Brighton Downs (in a big webinar of ~100 people) (PB)
Comment Alexandermcnabb I don't think it is fair to say his coverage in local media is "incidental". He has has been a mouth piece of a number of successful campaigns which have had local and national significance and in most cases where the privatisation of the Sussex Downs has been mentioned they have sought a quote from him. It might be that some of the references that have been added should be pruned and if that is the case, please feel free to suggest/make those changes and we can discuss. Thanks for your help with this. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Incidental" is not a word that I'd recognise when it comes to Mr Bangs! (PB)
Keep Pace earlier arguments, this article does not suggest that David Bangs is an academic, and therefore does not need to meet the notability guidelines for academics. Furthermore, the article meets general notability criteria - Bangs has appeared on public radio and television, has been visibly involved in Brighton politics, and his political and intellectual work has been subject to critical scholarly review, as the article notes (see here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10455752.2020.1778243?casa_token=-L4E3XD4Ep4AAAAA:J4YtnxEsTx3qnFkHiDhaR_XvlD9K9FaH1iE0TI5Ra1RS-tAz8rJMWQOTKrcHmdMbexTi764ePwnZXzM). Recommendations for deletion are therefore unmerited. I advise revising the recommendation to suggest the article ensure a slightly more neutral tone. Rapscalian (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initiated this proposed deletion. I'm still not convinced about its notability. Publishing books, painting murals and being involved in life generally is interesting, but it does not always lead to notability. I mean, we're all notable in some way, just not necessarily for an encyclopedia. Also I'm not sure about the neutrality about some of the edits of the article and even the contributions to this debate. Seaweed (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Solely on the basis of his life as a public artist, when his contributions have a unique significance to politics and the natural world, and have benefitted the lives of the communities where they have been painted, David Bangs meets the criteria for notability WP:GNG, and his publics art works have been mentioned already on wikipedia (Tolpuddle martyrs, Big Splash, ) and cited a number of times in London Mural Preservation Society (e.g. Calthorpe Project, Highbury Grove, Cromer Street Mosaic Murals) and books such as Secular Martyrdom in Britain and Ireland: From Peterloo to the Present. This was not the reason I created the article though, nor was it his extensive involvement in the successful campaigns to save many hectares of Sussex Downs from being privatised that has benefitted tens of thousands of Sussex residents and visitors, it was reading his book and realising the field research was notable in its coverage, knowledge and argumentation. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the original objection gives the impression that the self-published books are of little notability thanks to their being self-published. In fact, there have been reviews by Marion Shoard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Shoard and organisations such as https://www.ruralsussex.org.uk/. He's appeared on platforms with Caroline Lucas http://hoverepublic.blogspot.com/2010/10/latin-america-and-ecosocialist.html?m=1 and has had articles published in the Morning Star https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/books-our-countryside-use-it-or-lose-it. He has been an influence in many discussions and consultations on land use, politics and access in Sussex Identityrsb (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe the tone could be looked at but there is not doubt David Bangs is a notable and influential person. It is precisely because he is not easy to pigeon hole as either an academic, activist or naturalist that his career and output is so remarkable

Keep I think the article shouldn't be deleted because David Bang's literary works and social actions represent a significant contribution to the preservation and furtherment of the natural and social history of Sussex. He remains a key activist in the area, working to inform and mobilise the community.

Self-publication is not a reason to delete the article. His books have been critically reviewed by outside sources to great acclaim and are written in a way which both educates and inspires, deserving documentation and preservation in perpetuity.

https://www.ecos.org.uk/ecos-403-book-review-the-land-of-the-brighton-line/

https://www.ruralsussex.org.uk/book-review-the-land-of-the-brighton-line/

as a naturalist, David Bangs continues to make significant contributions to our understanding of the past and present state of the natural history of Sussex. His mapping of remaining chalk grassland around Brighton and Hove represents a resource that can be used to restore and reconnect this internationally important and culturally sigbificant habitat. His writings have been vital to providing an evidence base to inform the ongoing Brighton and Hove City Council City Downland Estate Plan public consultation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.42.228 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite all the obvious SPA/potential sock !votes above, the rationale of the nom stands, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because there are new voices on wikipedia (for newcomers to wikipedia editing SPA means Single Purpose Account) does not make their knowledge and opinion any less valid or should have any less say of who and what is notable enough for wikipedia entry - in fact quite the contrary. The allegation that these are sock votes (votes cast by spoof accounts) is low and quite frankly reprehensible. The final arbiters of this page will make their own decision. And now you seem to have double voted I am not sure if I should too. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - my mistake Paolo.oprandi (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep David Bangs's publications contain important and original research, and represent a unique resource in the ongoing efforts to protect and restore one of England's most biodiverse and culturally important landscapes. His work makes him eminently notable and certainly deserving of a dedicated entry. 82.27.145.124 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this entry shouldn´ẗ be deleted because A Freedom to Roam Guide to the Sussex Downs and especially The Land of the Brighton Line are impressive works. Bangs writes with passion and scholarship on natural history, geology and history. The books provide far more detail and in a far wider and often surprising range of areas than most field guides. They are probably self-published because few if any commercial publishers would have taken so much trouble over their design and included such large numbers of photos and diagrams Phlogiston72 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep this entry- Bangs' contribution to the understanding of Sussex' nature and history is most valuable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeda33 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are a couple of reviews of his books in serious publications, one by an author who is herself notable, which add to the collection of evidence which I think mounts to notability. (I have tweaked one ref, by Shoard, to clarify it, and added the review from Open Space (magazine).) PamD 17:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:- Seaweed I can see what triggered your concern, ip-editors and a single contributor making multiple edits, but in this case I think you were wrong. WP:DONTBITE applies. The man is a polymath, and cummulatively easily passes WP:GNG. Looking at the article you tagged when you tagged it- it was a bit raw and looked as we were discussing a non-notable selfpublished author- it has changed in style and content since then, and the fact that one of this graphic artistsWP:ARTIST, books WP:AUTHOR is the definitive text in this area of downland research and he is a television presenter does make a a difference. (Criteria: 1, 3, 4c) His successful political action viz CROW and street art deserve consideration now. WP:POLITICIAN may be is going too far though. What ever the result of this evalution, I do think it is good practice to give guidance on the talk page first, then use the BLP tag before considering for deletion. WP:RETENTION.ClemRutter (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with PamD's comments. Seaweed commented that "Publishing books, painting murals and being involved in life generally is interesting, but it does not always lead to notability", however the critical interacting with his work (especially the reviews of his books) goes deeper than the comment implies. With those reviews we have multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing Bangs, satisfying the general notability criteria. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I did a news search and found a number of sources that hadn't been mentioned such as this and this. It's "weak" because there isn't a "slam dunk" source like coverage in The Guardian (cf. George Monbiot) but nevertheless there's just about enough to put together a properly sourced article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:10, 14 May 2021 (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.