Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace 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. There is a clear consensus that this fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ace Baker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about what appears to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who is mildly known for a couple other things, but even then does not seem to pass WP:GNG.

Sourcing is also poor and RSs don't abound. Google search turns up mostly self published sites, and indeed most of the article is sourced to the subject. Google news turns up nothing in history and nothing in google books seems connected to the subject.

Even if we are to keep the article, the use of SPSs must be severely reduced.

The subject himself is also a substantial contributor to the article who once said on talk that the only explanation for the bias against him was that he proved his 9/11 theories. N o f o rmation Talk  03:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As proposer N o f o rmation  Talk  03:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - Nominators are not allowed to also !vote. I struck out the above !vote. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not take such liberties with my votes in the future. Nominators can vote as well as anyone else.  Find a policy that says otherwise.  N o f o rmation  Talk  05:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Seb az86556 has cleaned up the article, removed all unsourced statements, fixed POV issues and removed unreliable sources. At this point there is almost nothing left for the article, and what is there definitely does not seem to qualify as notable.  N o f o rmation  Talk  04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No !vote yet. almost none of the glorious claims held up to scrutiny; anyone who wants this to be kept will have to do some serious digging and bring proof. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's just blatant vandalism on the article. Goodness gracious. Now even my mainstream music credits are just cleansed. Last I checked, IMDB was a reliable source. The Pascal Dumont medical journal article is a mainstream source too. Yes, of course I believe this attack is related to the release of my 9/11 film, the timing is just too coincidental otherwise. The article about me stood for 3 years, and nobody cared, because it had been edited in a way that made me look bad. I try to add new credits, which by the way now include several songs as an artist and writer in American Pie Presents: The Book of Love. And what happens? An effort by Natty10000 to edit the article with false and unsourced material. So yes, I firmly believe that the agenda behind this effort to poison my Wiki article is owing to a fear about my 9/11 movie. Clearly Wiki?edia will do as they wish, so have at it folks. Ace Baker (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (i) Vandalism has a very specific definition on WP and this is not it. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project.  Adapting the page to policy is not harming the project QED.  See WP:NOTVAND. (ii) IMDB has never and will likely never be a reliable source on WP because it relies on user generated content and thus fails WP:V.  (iii) I don't care about you or your conspiracies and nor had I heard about you until I saw your article get posted by someone to WP:NOTCENSORED - I'm a scientist and the only thing that could interest me in 9/11 would perhaps be if it was actually carried out by martians (IOW, politics aren't my thing).  When I found your article I took the appropriate measures that I would for any article like that.  (iiii) However, your accusations against other editors are neither welcome now permitted on Wikipedia as per policy. (iiiii) I didn't remove the bit sorced to the medical journal so I have no idea about that.  (iiiiii) Everything that was removed was either unsourced or improperly sourced.  If you disagree you can ask about teh sources at WP:RSN.  (iiiiiiii) You may want to read our article on Dopamine.  N o f o rmation  Talk  05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For comparison, what should be done with this article Gary Richrath? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Baker (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nofo says (as if relevant) "I'm a scientist and the only thing that could interest me in 9/11 would perhaps be if it was actually carried out by martians". That's a very special quote. The strontium-barium correlation, the radioactive tritium, the molecular dissociation, the evaporated steel, etc don't interest Nofo, but martians do. Hilarious. Ace Baker (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nofo characterizes me as "a 9/11 conspiracy theorist", ignoring my mainstream success in music. Then, coincidentally, another editor removes all the sourced music credits. Go team, go!! Ace Baker (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? He was a member of an incredibly popular band... N o f o rmation  Talk  05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, are you serious? Chemical reactions are not specific to the twin towers.  what happened on the day of the attacks is not my bag of tea, I'm happily interesting in all sorts of physical science but not in any context relating to 9/11.  Secondly, your mainstream success in music was unsourced or improperly sourced.  If you feel you can find sources then please bring them up.  N o f o rmation  Talk  05:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that Gary Richrath was the member of an incredibly popular band is your original research. "Incredibly popular" is not encyclopedic. Yes, I personally know about Gary, because I was in that band in 1991. But anyone reading Gary Richrath now will discover that 95% of the article is not sourced. I just sent you there, and you're fine with it, yet you decimate the article on me, while claiming that you "took the appropriate measures that I would for any article like that". Well, I'm now calling your attention to the article on Gary, and observing whether you take appropriate measures. Ace Baker (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (i) If you were the guitarist of a band that sold 10 million copies of a single album then we would be talking about the same thing. (ii) Sorry to be rude but do you really see yourself as notable as the guitarist of REO Speedwagon?  That's patently absurd. (iii)  If you think that article is unsourced then try to find sources and if you can't then remove the unsourced content.  I tried to find sources on you and I failed.  I asked you to provide sources and you have not done so. (iiii) Create a better analogy.  Find me another article about someone who has little claim to notability and whose page is littered with undue self-published sources and I will treat that page as it deserves.  Gary Richrath is famous. You are not.   N o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  06:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Barbie as Princess and the Pauper sold 10's of millions of copies, and I wrote and produced the end-title track. American Pie Book of Love, I'm in there. I was in REO Speedwagon, the Supremes, Mother's Finest, and Iron Butterfly. These credits were absolutely fine for 3 years, until . . . my 9/11 film came online. Now, I need to be gone. Ace Baker (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you find sources for what guitars Gary plays? They're all listed in his article? They're not sourced.
 * No, so I removed the section. Can you provide sources that you were in REO Speedwagon, the Supremes, etc?  Drop the 9/11 garbage.  I am asking you for sources and you are skirting the issue, I assume, because you don't have any.  If I found your article 3 years ago I would have brought it up three years ago.  Now either provide sources or drop it  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  06:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, if IMDB is not a source, then I can't prove my credits. There must be 10,000 references to IMDB on Wikipedia, if not 100,000. If IMDB were really not a RS, then Wiki would make a bot to flag them all. Ace Baker (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde_jazz


 * This article, plus nearly every person linked in the article, should be decimated as you did me. Ace Baker (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This AFD is about this article.  If you can provide sources that meet WP:RS guidelines then the article will stay, if you cannot then it will be deleted.  Nothing else to it.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  06:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also WP:IMDB if you don't believe me. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  06:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to Barbie movie, credit at 3:30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DYLlss-Kok Ace Baker (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, Ace. Just step way. Go away. You have the heaviest case of COI here. Don't even touch it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look I'm going to level with you. Even if you find a few credits here and there that said you existed, unless there is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources it's not going to muster past WP:N.  None the less, I've put about all I'm willing to put into this conversation.  The best thing you can do is find as many sources as possible and make the article better before the AFD finishes. Also concur with Seb. 07:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noformation (talk • contribs) 07:24, January 6, 2012‎


 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Nothing in gnews, gbooks gives one reference (one of Baker's lyrics is quoted in The American Dream by Miles Palecek, which is self-published and thus unusable); so far all I've found on the internet generally are Baker's own websites and a couple of forums - again, nothing to satisfy WP:RS. The fact that the article seems to be an autobio also suggests that the subject is not notable. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
 * the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.Ace Baker (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...but, per WP:GNG, not for the purpose of establishing notability. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I've confirmed Yunshui's findings above. Multiple searches turned up nothing substantial enough to meet the requirements of WP notability policies. Most of the information about him that is available is self-published or traceble directly to him. This seems to be blatant self-promotion. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. Fails to satisfy our notability requirements, due to paucity of substantial rs coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete OK, I admit it. You got me! I made it all up. Blatant self-promotion, all of it. I never actually got a gold record, I never wrote "I'm On My Way" for the Barbie Movie and soundtrack, I never scored any films with James Coburn and Dennis Hooper, my artist songs were never in American Pie Book of Love, I was never in Iron Butterfly, or REO, or Mother's Finest, the guy in the video playing for 50,000 people in Amsterdam is someone else apparently, I never was awarded a patent, I never coined a medical term with its associated treatise, somebody else did that too, so that journal article means nothing here, and I never made a film about 9/11 that got a million hits. I apologize and beg forgiveness. In reality I work at the grocery store or something. Make the article disappear, just like they made my court case disappear from the public records, which was, of course, Orange County (California) Superior Court Case 0510990.Ace Baker (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first time you made a pointy edit was when I came across your article (that is, you throwing a tantrum on WP:V - had you not done that then there's a decent chance your article would have stayed under the radar). This time your pointy sarcastic edit is just adding to your article getting deleted.  If all those things were true then you should be able to find sources.  Wikipedia is not a playground nor a place to publish yourself.  You have a major COI here and it really would be best if you just left this to the regular WP editors.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. If what you say is true, then had I not made a pointy edit, then the article would still be there. Would that be "best"? Ace Baker (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that I have also listed Articles for deletion/Clair Marlo, who evidently worked with Baker on the ESPN documentary, for the same reasons as this AFD (save the 9/11 truther stuff). N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  00:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG in any category. Lucky Louie's Litmus-like Law of COI also applies: "The more they argue they are notable, the less likely they are notable" - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per failing the WP:GNG requirements, as well as missing the criteria for inclusion in more specific areas that might apply, like WP:NMUSIC. DreamGuy (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: WIki guideline for WP:GNG:


 * "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition."


 * I wrote "I'm On My Way", end-title song for top-selling DVD "Barbie As Princess and the Pauper", also on related soundtrack album. This is fact, and was cited and sourced, until Noformation and crew VANDALIZED the article about me. It is absolutely certain that editors removed the sourced material for the express purpose of abolishing the notability. Obviously, NO SUBJECT is notable, once the NOTABLE material is removed from the article. What filthy, provable liars you are. Ace Baker (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the following text in the same guidelines: Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.. I will leave someone else to comment on the notability aspect as I've never heard of your works. There is a signficant lack of reliable sources. Also guidelines aren't the same as policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What About American Pie Presents: The Book of Love?


 * I wrote and produced and sang a number of songs in this film, and my credits appear in the Wiki Article. I had nothing to do with this article, BTW.Ace Baker (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED, just because you're work is featured in a notable production, it doesn't mean you meet the requirements for your own article.--81.159.171.164 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. For those seeking further comment from Ace, please note that he has been blocked indef.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.