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.— Kww( talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 June 13. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
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) reply
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) reply
*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
[1] 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)
reply
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.— Kww( talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 June 13. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
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) reply
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) reply
*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
[1] 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)
reply