Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Baker

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Baker

Bart Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The two "only" substantial sources are not just interviews in its entirety. We see a huge chunk of original text from the writer before the actual interview in the first Huff Post source. Similarly the second Huff Post source also has content not contributed by Baker. Source 3 is just used to back up the line on his username on YouTube. Source 4, no matter how small the mention, still established notability. Source 5 isn't a porn site. It is a viral video site hosted by a porn site. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge somewhere else considering the two huffington post sources and the AsiaOne source, but I'm sure more reliable articles are likely to come up about this guy considering this user's fame. 和DITOREtails 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete his videos are enjoyable but - Only independent source devotes a sentence to Baker and could not find anything else.
  Talk 11:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Huff Post bloggers are generally not considered reliable sources (no editorial oversight and fact-checking), and in any case, that "huge chunk of original text" Bonkers refers to is just seven sentences that introduce the interview. That leaves us with a one-sentence reference in AsiaOne, which isn't enough to establish notability. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I did some mining and I found this, this, and this. Enough to establish GN? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three lines in the Metro (a London free sheet) is hardly significant coverage. Dunno about Zumic. There was an article about them on Wikipedia which was speedy deleted about them earlier this year. I'm not seeing any other links to them on Wikipedia so we'd probably have to have a discussion about whether Zumic is a reliable source. The NME is a reliable source, but NME Video isn't. There's no editorial content there, just a copy of the YouTube video. None of those three links seem compelling as reliable sources to me. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOFRIENDS (disclosure: I wrote it)—just because he's a new media celebrity who has got lots of followers on YouTube doesn't mean he's notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2013 (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.