Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Baker (talk radio host)

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Baker (talk radio host)

[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)

Insufficiently notable person. To the extent that he is notable, its for a WP:BLP1E incident where he got fired for a tweet, which is ho hum and an ephemeral one-day wonder. The only reason for this page to exist is to attack him and make him miserable. Whether he deserves that or not I'll leave as an exercise for the reader, but even if he does it's not our job to dish out justice. (He's an extreeeme-right-wing radio talker, if you're wondering what I mean.)

I am basically unable to find any NPOV sources whatsoever on this person. All of the sources I have found are basically raking him over the coals and calling him names. For a BLP, those are not acceptable sources for anything -- being so POV that you're calling the subject names makes everything else in the source suspect, including basic facts.

Over time, all the POV sources have been redacted, leaving an unref'd BLP. It needs to go.

For my part, I would say that even if some NPOV sources can be found, I doubt the person is Wikinotable beyond the WP:BLP1E, and anyway the article if it continues to exist will be a constant attractive nuisance for editors to come along and attack the guy, and it's just a headache, so yeet it out of here per IAR as just not worth the trouble and expenditure of editor time for a very-marginal-at-best person. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: forgot to add the subject wants the article taken down, see below. Herostratus (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I see at least one RS about the firing, but that is BIO1E; the rest of the entry (before stubbifyibg) was not suggestive of notability anyway, and in brief seems as tho it will always be subject to the coatracking Herostratus takes issue with. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on the fence, given amount of sources now identified. They almost all talk about a series of similar incidents, which doesn’t exactly give a well-rounded bio but it’s not 1E either. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is this the same Chris Baker? There might be a case for WP:GNG if this is the same person. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. However... I have to wonder if the "feature movie" documentary actually exists (the ref you cite just says he's announced it). The only other mention I have is this, again just an announcement. That ref does have a three minute trailer tho. The only other ref I found was this which is some 2007 lawsuit about it. I'm not finding anyone saying that that they've actually seen the movie, and it's supposedly existed for 13 years now. IMDb has never heard of it.

Yeah, coverage is coverage, but it'd be kind of misleading to imply that he's made a movie if he hasn't. But the first ref looks good.

Oh and by the way -- this is important -- the subject (says he's the subject, and seems legit) says here that the article (as it stood then) was "defamatory and damaging my professional reputation.... This inaccurate and damaging information needs to be removed". The info wasn't actually false, but it was damaging. There doesn't seem much you can say about this guy that doesn't make him look pretty bad, it seems. Anyway, if a subject wants his article removed, per the spirit of WP:BLP I think we should consider that very strongly. The GNG is a guideline, we are not robotically bound to it. Even if he does meet the GNG, the downside of having this article outweighs the upside. Herostratus (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mikehawk10, yes same person. I personally would like to see a bit more beyond hometown coverage but it’s true that even those verify that this was a person seeking the limelight, so saying that now that the coverage isn’t favorable, he should be accorded privacy is an arg that holds a lot less water for me. IMO there are RS (eg 1, 2) on his firing so the question to me is just, is there enough to write up an encyclopedic biography or is it really 1E? Innisfree987 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987 and Herostratus: Going back through the history of the page, I also found this source describing his nomination to the Texas Radio Hall of fame, this article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation describing something I won't repeat here out of WP:BLP concerns for Magic Johnson, there's possibly another Houston Chronicle article describing his return to Texas airwaves (though I can't find it), he apparently left KSEV to go to Omaha without warning, and all the references got purged from the article in 2015, which rendered it looking as if it never had citations. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Yeah: using a time-delimited search to exclude the recent flap, I found ... more coverage of his departures from more gigs: 1, 2, 3. As far as promo, the original page might’ve been written by a fan, but if there is solid RS coverage of more than just one event in his career of going on the radio on a regular basis, the fact that that coverage isn’t entirely positive is not a reason to delete. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based off of the response to my question above, I'm inclined to either keep or draftify. The page was recently kinda nuked, but it's clear to me that this isn't WP:BIO1E, since there's more than one event here. The page needs work, but also I can't possible see how something how WP:TNT applies in terms of deletion. The subject is notable, but we need a better page than what we have, which currently says very little at all except the guy's (former) profession. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For additional reasons why I'm not super sympathetic to deleting on the guy's request, the earliest version of the article was blatantly advertorial. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the subject is a paradigm of virtue. However, "serves him right" is not a good reason to have an article. In fact, it's a point against. This person's supporters are not going to be respecters of the Wikipedia's mission, and it's going to be very hard to keep the edits to the article NPOV, whether from the political left or right, and keeping it BLP-compliant will be a constant timesink for editors.

The very first words of WP:N are "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If there's ever going to be occasional exceptions, this'd be one of them. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus:, again, I don't think that the reason for inclusion is serves him right, but instead that he's notable, as established by the repeated, in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that WP:N is a guideline and I understand a desire by the individual to not have an article on Wikipedia containing his misdeeds, but if he's notable then I see no reason why he should not be included in our encyclopedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, we can agree to disagree. If he was more notable it'd be different, but he's just marginal. Herostratus (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh, since the article is essentially empty right now, I suppose a case could be made to burn the rest, and let somebody start from scratch if the they want to. Leaving a BLP stub around to be turned into an attack page, maybe not so good. If anybody wants to do, or promise to do, a WP:HEY rebuild, that'd be different and there'd be a fair argument for keeping. I can't be assed, anybody want to step up? Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been adding to it from sources located to see how far we could get. I will take further discussions of what to include to the talk page to limit wall of text in hopes more ivoters will weigh in. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is excellent. Yes WP:HEY is in play now and... the notion of keeping the article after all seems right. It will have to be watched. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past precedent; we have tended to keep articles about drive time DJs in major radio markets. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources are enough to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article shows abundant sources to establish Notability, and spot-checking sources shows extensive coverage entirely dedicated to the article-subject. This guy is a media professional, and he has succeeded in generating a noted public profile for himself. Alsee (talk) 11:33, 8 July 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.