Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Baker (writer)

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. No reliable sources, and apparently no hope of expansion.-Wafulz 15:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Baker (writer)

Screenwriter with only 2 major movie credits, fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed per WP:MOVIE. (And I'd call them cult movies myself." --ROGER ^TALK 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both above. He worked on a couple of movies for a friend (I also agree that they are cult classics), and that's it.--Ispy1981 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I certainly don't agree with the dismissive attitude toward the films Baker is associated with -- especially Witchfinder General which several notable critics believe is a masterpiece -- as the writer of the article in question I can't strongly argue against deletion. The two Michael Reeves films are his only indicated credits on IMDB, and the biographical details provided on that website are nonexistent. However, the fact that Witchfinder is considered to be a major horror film with an inarguable influence on the genre, I would think that the film's screenwriter should have at least a stub entry. But if the vote is to delete, I will accept/understand the decision.-Hal Raglan 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely therefore the place for him is a credit/mention in the film article itself? That is the (only) source of such notability as he has. I don't see much point in tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion. --ROGER ^TALK 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is of course mentioned in the Witchfinder article. During a peer review, another editor suggested that Baker's name should be wikilinked and an article devoted to him. I did so, but in my research I could find no other info other than the details presently in the article. I honestly don't think this can be expanded beyond what it is. If/when the vote for deletion reaches consensus, I will de-wikilink his name in the Witchfinder article and probably make reference to his other script credit, as well as his friendship with Reeves, in a footnote.-Hal Raglan 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe notability is established with his credits. However, he is mentioned in at least one of the other two articles, and the chances of this article being expanded are slim to none at this point. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that an article is short isn't a reason for deletion. These are two important films, not you tube clips, with Witchfinder General a very famous effort. Would a Hollywood writer with 'only' two credits be similarly dismissed? What about an actor with only two major roles? How can predictions be made about what will or won't be added to the article in future anyway? The Remarkable Michael Reeves: His Short and Tragic Life by John B. Murray may well contain information about him and there's another biography of the director by Ben Halligan which might be useful here. Nick mallory 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say, you are misconstruing my comments. It is not necessarily that the article is short, it is that Mr. Baker is already listed in an other piece and that this article adds no additional information. Do we add article upon article upon article for every individual that is part of a film? ShoesssS ^Talk 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. If Tom Baker is notable, as i believe he is for co writing these two films, then why shouldn't he have his own article? Nick mallory 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to my question….what does the article add?Shoessss | Chat 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It adds the fact that Tom Baker appeared in a 1999 documentary called 'Blood Beast' about the films of Michael Reeves. If someone googles Tom Baker in search of information about him and his work they'll find it in one place instead of having to look through several film articles. I don't see the problem here. Wikipedia is not paper. It's an encyclopedia. Nick mallory 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's short and sweet - I see nothing wrong with the article, even if it can't be further expanded since it aides navigation. It could also be argued it meets WP:BIO depending how liberally you interpret the guideline. -Halo 23:21, 20 July 2007 (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.