Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that we are two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Bearian This isn’t close enough to be a COI in my opinion Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Tell that to the random new users who have flamed me over the years. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Rainfixer has been blocked as a sock and their comment has been struck out per WP:SOCKSTRIKE (not by me). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. While he may not meet WP:NJournalist, but the coverage generated by his published work shows enough depth to establish notability Brodska213 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The book may be notable per WP:NBOOK, but the author isn't. So we could delete the author page and have one for the book. Longhornsg (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as we haven't kept anyone as notable for one book. His book might meet notability criteria, but he fails WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. DylanMReed (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep: Subject appears to meet the third criterion of WP:AUTHOR due to cofounding and editing Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. The sourcing on that article is itself suspect, with one of the five sources being the journal's own about page and two being articles by Baer himself, but that's another discussion that needs to be had first. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 16:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Almost every source is an opinion by the subject, or an opinion about him, but no facts about him. Film reviews about an actor are accepted, but not about someone who is essentially a talking head. Bearian (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. One book with published reviews isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR, although it could justify a redirect from this title to an article about the book. The journal isn't the kind of established scholarly journal that could pass WP:PROF#C8. (This is not really because of its topic; political science is a valid topic of scholarly discourse, but this appears to be more a magazine and publisher of position papers than a scholarly journal and publisher of peer-reviewed research.) His political appointments are far from enough for WP:NPOL. Being quoted in news media is not really itself a notability criterion for a political pundit (this is another one that could be different if what he were quoted for were scholarship or research rather than political opinions; that might fit PROF#C7 but Baer's work doesn't). So that leaves WP:GNG and depth of coverage of Baer himself in independent reliable sources, and I don't see evidence of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2026 (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.