Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Baker
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Baker
- Donald Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - I've been looking for sources for this gentleman for a while and I'm not finding anything that covers him in a capacity other than as plaintiff in the case ]
- Delete as per ]
- Merge it to the Baker case. While I agree it's one event, merger is much preferable here to deletion, thus saving any history and filling gaps in the target article. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge. What little information in this article that's sourced is already in the case article (I added it from an independent source, not from this article) and what isn't referenced is either not relevant to the case (Baker's early life and life after the case) or is factually inaccurate (the recounting of the case history is wrong per multiple reliable sources). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - we already have a page for the legal case, so nothing, as they say, is lost - Alison ❤ 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reluctantly, but all the good coverage seems to be in relation to and better treated at the case. A simple redirect would also work, as we will need a redirect at this title in any case. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO1E. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (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.