Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Baker (2nd nomination)

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. Will redirect to the dab page Doug Baker after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Baker

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

Lack of independent sources; establishment of notability not improved since first AfD. —swpb^T 17:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than some of his listed books at Books, browsers and Scholar. Notifying 1st AfDers Nyttend and Zero0000. DGG, I believe you could also contribute beneficial comments here given your familiar area insight. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at the first AFD: no evidence of notability, and these publications [stuff published either by 'D. Baker' or by 'Baker Publications', or by Claregate College which the author established] can be treated as self-published. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obit in the Times has always been considered here as definitive proof of notability, as a world-famous newspaper of record. It true that his career does not match anything that I personally would think notable, but that's not the standard.. One really good source is enough, and the Times is that. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But DGG, which Times is being talked about? I'm willing to strike my vote if I can be shown that it's The Times of London, or the New York Times (of course less likely for a Briton), or any other major Times, but without specification and without full citation information, we can't know. For a hypothetical example, he founded a small and short-lived college; wouldn't this potentially make him a candidate for an immediately postmortem appearance in The Oxford Times? I don't have access to the archives of The Times of London, so I can't do anything better than my quick inconclusive Google search, and I'll happily withdraw if you confirm that it's The Times of London or any other really major newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can see allowing obituaries alone establish notability for people who died before even 2000, someone who died this recently we should be able to find sources outside of an obituary, that may be in a major publication, if they really were notable. The obituary rule is mainly in place because sources before a certain date are harder to find, but with such a recent death that should not be an issue. There are not enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability in the article. Willing to reconsider if DGG can summon up the obituary, my searches for it drew a blank. Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability. The only source is the supposed Times obituary. "The Times" without qualification is unambiguously the London one, and a Times obituary (as opposed to a paid death notice) would be good enough for notability for me, but I can find no evidence that it actually exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If presented with solid evidence that this is The Times, and not merely a Times, I will wholeheartedly support keeping the article, not because one of their obituaries is sufficient coverage by itself, but because they're well qualified to decide which newly-dead people are significant enough that their deaths warrant a news story, and we can assume that the very low standards of WP:BIO would easily be satisfied by such a person. I'll happily switch if someone with online or print access to Times-of-London archives can confirm that they really did publish such a story, but lacking such confirmation, I agree that we're lacking WP:V here. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem I indeed cannot find it in the index to The Times -- Iwsill need to check further. it is inded possible that it did not mean the London Times. butt here may be a problem--it's not in their index DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote "An online obituary is visible at www.times.co.uk" on the talk page, but I don't find it either. Zero^talk 13:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I gain the impression that he managed to make a living as a full-time crank, peddling his WP:FRINGE pseudo-science through an unrecognized college and a self-publishing company. My guess is that most of the books were pamphlets, though many managed to have both hard and paperback editions. this link appears to show that the company in question was dissolved in 1995, perhaps when the subject retired. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, being a full-time crank is not a reason for deletion. What you need to show is that he wasn't a notable full-time crank. I'm not so sure. Zero^talk 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on keepers to show he satisfies WP:V. There appears to be no argument that if a good ref appears a number of editors will change from delete to keep, myself included. Szzuk (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (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.