Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Humphrey

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 reviewed most of the links provided by the people calling for keeping this guy. The links fell into one of two categories. First, most of them dealt with the fact that he was the spokesperson/chairman for various presidential candidates. Being a spokesperson, while high profile, does not make one notable. Second, many of the articles dealt with the fact that he is the grandson of a former VP does not make him notable. Again, this is not grounds for keeping.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Buck Humphrey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Person does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, and notability is not inherited from his grandfather. Unsuccessful candidacy for a state office and work in state campaigns for presidential candidates aren't sufficient to establish notability. Relevant Google News hits seem to deal with his unsuccessful run for office or with decisions not to run for other offices. Current position seems to be as a communications officer for a federal agency. Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable subject. Nom's arguments appear to be correct. Subject has done nothing of particular note and relation to another more famous individual does not merit the subject's inclusion here. We do not need a list of government employees on Wiki! Wah! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*Keep The references and links within the article are enough to meet the minimum requirement of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. He worked as the election director for Minnesota for both Gore and Mrs. Clinton, and also made his own (failed) attempt to be elected Secretary of State, and references are shown for all of these facts. But what put it over the top for me was this 2007 reliable and independent source that addressed the subject of Buck Humphrey directly and in detail. That meets WP:GNG and thats a keep. Inniverse (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A blog. A city newspaper. Another blog. And the website of his employer, which is about as independent and third party as the republicans are moral. Ironholds (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked as sock of Azviz.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I spent way too much time looking over this article myself. I would have to say that this particular individual is just at the cusp of what might be considered notable, independent of his namesakes that were also politicians.  I think in this case perhaps the article is premature.  He may end up somebody of some stature and notability, but isn't there yet.  If/when he achieves some notable elected position or appointment to office, it would be useful to keep the article but not until then.  BTW, I don't mind that the reference to his father and grandfather are in the article, which is something of note about him that does impact voter perception about him as well.  The issue is that by itself that isn't something of note other than as a footnote in articles about his father and grand father.  The Skip Humphrey article perhaps could be expanded slightly or re-organized to have a section about his children, and including a reference to Buck Humphrey's political ambitions.  That shouldn't be more than a sentence or two at most.  --Robert Horning (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of news mention of him. For his failed run for political office, for helping others in their campaigns, and for his DWI arrest.   D r e a m Focus  19:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV announces run for secretary of state Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - Dec 6, 2001
 * GOP makes Buck Humphrey face up to DWI arrests;Star Tribune -Oct 16, 2002
 * Minnesota campaign, 30-year-old Buck Humphrey says he's staying … Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - Aug 17, 2000
 * Bill Clinton's Minnesota fundraising stop canceled Minneapolis Star-Tribune - NewsBank - May 22, 2008 Have to pay for full article, but they quote him as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota on occasion.
 * Over 200 results right there to sort through. The ones from the year 2000 onward are from him, you able to easily look through it.  All the results require you to pay for the full article, so just read through the title and summaries and you can confirm he has gotten adequate coverage not just for his run for office and things involved in it, but also being campaign manager for Hillary Clinton.   D r e a m Focus  03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS . Location (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve: Not sure how the AfD got this far with no one noticing that the subject was appointed to a high level executive U.S. agency position last fall.  But I fixed up and added a few cites, and I see there is more improvement that can be done.  Has been the subject of significant coverage on multiple occasions.--Milowent (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting find. If you take into account all the various branches of the US government, there are about a gazillion schedule C appointees. There are quite a few similar level positions with the USCIS: . I'm curious to know how notable his position is if there isn't any discussion about him or the office. Is there precedent for this in other notability discussions? Location (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good questions. I see, as you did, that he is listed among the "leadership" of that large U.S. Government agency, but he is one of a number of people.  I see him being quoted as a spokesperson for the agency in the press, so he is likely the lead press relations person for the agency.  Perhaps not enough for notability by itself, but its an added plus.--Milowent (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not sure how the AfD got this far with no one noticing ..."? Did you actually read the nomination, Milowent—the last sentence in particular? Deor (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, guess i missed that. I couldn't imagine someone wouldn't update the article--Milowent (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete currently fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO generally, due to lack of multiple significant WP:RS, etc. Verbal chat
 * Delete - Just on the cusp of failing WP:POLITICIAN, but a fail nonetheless. Recreate the article in a year or two if the subject does something which passes WP:POLITICIAN.     talk 22:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The press is clearly following his career and he operates in Democratic big leagues even if he as a candidate hasn't held high office. A quick check of the amount of coverage shows far more than required for notability in any field. He is mentioned in press across the country including, but certainly not limited to: USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Sacramento Bee, St. Paul Pioneer, Star Tribune, Duluth News Tribune, Toledo Blade, Minnesota Daily, Grand Forks Herald, The Daily Journal. Lineage may be partly the reason but he has some national prominence. Eudemis (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2010 (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.