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. I think we can safely say that the wider consensus is that the DM isn't a reliable source and other sources are very LOCAL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Baxter[edit]

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

Promotional article for not very notable boat builder,e.g. "By 2005 he was able to use his profits to purchase a home." About half the article is devoted to an utterly trivial publicity-seeking matter in which he seems to exploited another person's newsworthiness. . DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable businessman, notability claim is essentially a single news story...must have been a quiet day for the story to have found its way beyond the Bournemouth Echo.TheLongTone (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- He went up to high turnover quickly. There is some non-encyclopaedic content. The material on Lance Armstrong wreaks of WP:COATHANGER, but there is enough of value to allow it to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I mean that with some reluctance, as I don't consider references with authors like "QMI Agency" to be exactly legitimate and newspapers like the Bournemouth Echo to be more than extremely local in distribution. But he has gotten the attention of writers (writers with real first and last names) for the Daily Mail, attention which has then gone on to be repeated in New Zealand, and to me that smacks of notability, even if that notability is as to his poor decision-making as a businessman. Article should probably be reduced to little more than a stub, however, and I don't see much future interest in the subject. Also: I think its "reeks", not "wreaks", and WP:COATHANGER appears not to exist, though maybe you mean WP:COATRACK?. KDS4444^Talk 09:36, 24 March 2014 (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.