Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Baker (political scientist)

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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Baker (political scientist)[edit]

This is a BLP with no sources and little in the way of asserting notability. Teaching at a high school and working for the State Department do not make one notable. While a C.V. is presented, without knowing more about these publications it's impossible to judge whether this person meets WP:PROF. A quick Google doesn't yield much, but the name is common so good results may be buried. Oren0 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you've misread the article. It says he has taught at "the University of Alabama, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Webster University, Pulaski Technical College, the University of Central Arkansas, and the Arkansas Governor's School for the Gifted and Talented", none of which are high schools (although the latter is a residential program aimed at students of high-school age). It's hard to find any sources about him due to difficulty finding relevant ones among the irrelevant, but I do note that several of the publications the article claims he has written for are notable ones. JulesH (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy, I've tagged it as such as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Don-Baker-(political-scientist)

Not speedy. That is a copy of the Wikipedia article, not vice versa. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the sake of people who might be interested in him, the article does no harm. Esasus (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines. An 'emerging' political scientist is one thing, a notable one is another... Richard Hock (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Esasus - please look at WP:NOHARM - "the article does no harm" is not a valid argument in deletion debates. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article establishes quite a few publications, but those are primary sources and not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. However, it is not impossible that he actually is notable, and I'd prefer starting off with a {{notability}} tag. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A person can do notable academic work even if the person is teaching in a high school. Writing multiple articles of major standard encyclopedias might be notable work, but I would really like to see a more exact list of them. Scopus does not cover this subject very well, but the paper in J conflict Resolution 45:661-87 (2001) found there had 25 later references to it. I do not want to prejudice an article solely on the basis of it saying"an emerging..." , but such wording is usually an indication of not yet being notable. DGG (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very willing to be convinced that this individual is notable. I wish that some of the people who are saying keep would add some refs. I just don't see how a BLP article can be allowed to stand for a significant amount of time with zero sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. The only link I could find for his pubs was to his 1999 dissertation, which has zero citations in Google Scholar. In WorldCat, there is only one entry, again to his 1999 dissertation, which is held by only 1 library worldwide (Univ. of Alabama). Google News and Books searches yield similarly insignificant results, after elimination of false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is not a well-known political scientist and current publication record does not satisfy notability criteria for academics. One of the journals mentioned is somewhat widely read, but not enough to confer sufficient notability by simply publishing in it. There might be a case for keeping it if his time in foreign service was particularly notable, but there is no evidence of this. Jvr725 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (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.