Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Baker (Businessman)

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. Nancy ^talk 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC) _{Note - article has been renamed Richard Baker (UK businessman) Nancy^talk 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Richard Baker (Businessman)[edit]

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

non-notable person. content of the article consists entirely of promoting and advertising a person. Amsaim (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold for now Article is badly written by a new editor and reads like a resume. However, there is sufficient information in the article to establish notability. A simple Google search brings up multiple independent sources that suggest he has more than sufficient notability for inclusion, for example:

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/884350/Nectar-card-owner-names-ex-Boots-head-Richard-Baker-board/

http://ashteadgroup.org/Article6.RBInterview.aspx

http://www.adventinternational.com/news/PressReleases/pages/Pressrelease20090820_En.aspx

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2002/09/20/189736/joint-loyalty-card-dips-into-customer-data-honeypot.htm

~~If no effort is made to improve the article, then delete as per nom.~~

~~Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. In my opinion, the article requires a major cleanup or rewrite to become encyclopedic. I would not suggest keeping it in its current state: WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR, WP:BLPSTYLE. — Rankiri (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC) ^{(Explanation below) — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

~~It would require substantial rewriting. Perhaps userfying the article would be appropriate?~~

Keep for now. Let's just notice the editor, and wait for him/her to improve the article. If no efforts would be made, then userfy to the creator. Blodance the Seeker 16:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tinkered with the article a little, bringing it more in line with other WP articles. It still needs a lot of work, but it's possibly better than it was. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept then it needs a better dab as there is already an article on someone else with the title Richard Baker (businessman). Keith D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Richard Baker (UK businessman)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little surprised that the article was placed on Wikipedia, then effectively abandoned by the original author. Mind you, there was a little bit of biting involved... he may have been scared off. The subject is clearly notable under WP:GNG. I've added multiple references to demonstrate this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've rewritten the article. Subject satisfies all relevant notability guidelines. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All WP:PROMOTION and WP:OR concerns have been addressed. Sources like [1], [2], or [3] satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 27 January 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.