Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reade 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. Secret account 18:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Reade Baker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod of non notable person Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Has no indication of notability, only information about him is that he's an "American horce racing trainer". -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed. That is why I proded in the first place. I suspect original author deproded for something like pride but never improved article. Postcard Cathy (talk)

Comment. I started to expand and this could turn into something wiki worthy. But it is 3 am and I am very tired. Baker NTRA looks like a wonderful place to start. Postcard Cathy (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. He certainly appears to be notable, but the question is whether what's here is worth keeping. Plenty of stats around, and coverage includes: , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2&cent; 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly might be possible to write an article about this person which cites reliable sources that support a substantive claim of notability — I don't know nearly enough about horse racing to be able to adequately judge that. But this article, as written, provides absolutely no substantive evidence that he warrants coverage in an encyclopedia. So I'm willing to reconsider this if someone can WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard by close, and have no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and source a better, more substantive article than this — but in the current state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (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.