Deletion of Charles H. Baker Jr.

Comment: As far as I can tell, all but three of those "sources" are unacceptable. Most are (a) primary sources and (b) public documents such as census returns etc that say nothing other than "he lived in this town" or similar. Of the other sources two or possibly three (it's hard to tell) look to just be laundry-list catalogue entries etc that happen to mention his book as one of a number of others. The two apparently legitimate sources - the Washington Post review and the New York Times Book Review review, maybe ''just'' push him over the bar of "a body of work which has been the subject of multiple independent reviews", but very weakly. I do, however, take issue with this nomination; this was AfD'd ''two minutes'' after creation whilst a ''potentially'' valid article & still being worked on. The nominator has a long history of doing this and I wish they'd stop, as it's starting to push  to the limit
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: Ample sources are provided to establish notability. The fact that Baker did most of his work before the Internet era limits ready access to those ready-to-click sources we'd all prefer to see. As stated at #Notability requires objective evidence and does not generally expire, "If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time." The multiple, independent, reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)