Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Huckabee

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Huckabee[edit]

UPDATED the bio (LEAD) on Dec 19th, and would ask the Deletes, and Merges to reassess. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Huckabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability - this is an entry about two relatively minor stories which are only notable because they involve MIKE Huckabee. The stories are briefly noted on Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign page. There does not need to be a David Huckbaee biography page. Also, the page contains no other information about David besides the two incidents. Paisan30 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely non notable. Even in the highly unlikely event that his father happens to lose the Presidential election because his son once, allegedly, killed a dog, that does not merit the son having his own entry. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, David Hucakbee's exploits are becoming fodder in his father's opponents' campaigns. Corvus cornixtalk 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I can tell there are 3 possible guideline violations 1. Secondary coverage is trivial 2. Only notable because related to someone famous 3. Notable for a single event. I think a case could be made for any of these, but the fact is he is getting significant national press coverage for a number of past events, and because of this his notability is not only because he is related to someone famous, but because of the actions he has done in relation to that famous person. So I'd have to say keep. Joshdboz (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons said -- this guy was written about before the pres campaign. And there is nothing wrong with deriving fame from slaughtering dogs, and getting arrested at air ports. Think of his relation to Mike, as the icing on the cake. EvanCarroll (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the original nomination. Regardless of whether you accept all accusations at face value, notability is not really established by not being charged with a crime and then by committing a crime that the Little Rock police (in the reference for the story) call very common (this is Arkansas, everyone has a gun and there is no evidence that he was trying to misuse his weapon). He is clearly only "notable" because he's related to someone famous and, what's more, he's really only notable because this is an election year. Lordjeff06 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I'd like to see this article gone, I think that the presumption of non-notability has been sufficiently rebutted by the citations included in the article. --Elliskev 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is only notable because he is related to somebody famous, in this case to Mike Huckabee. If the information given in the article deserves to be mentioned at all, it should be done in the main page for Mike Huckabee himself. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mike Huckabee- The issue is starting to get enough traction that it merits keeping the information if its presented in the context of his father's campaign, but it doesn't really warrant its own article yet. If further information comes in down the line, I wouldn't oppose it being split off again. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mike Huckabee. If and when David Huckabee becomes more notable in his own right, he can have an article then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (selectively merge) with Mike Huckabee. This person fails WP:BIO and the article only exists because he is related to a presidential candidate. The refs are generally lacking in reliability and independence, or are passing reference or directory listings. Also per WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bio does not add anything to his notability. A silly Arkansas State newspaper story from 2001; the fact that he was prom king; the fact that he's a mortgage broker; and interviews from his college years. Also, the fact that he has been reimbursed by the Huckabee campaign fund is not notable, unless there is some allegation of wrongdoing. Candidates reimburse people for campaign expenses all the time. Paisan30 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither incident would be notable if his name weren't Huckabee (and are only marginally notable as it is), so if the content is to be included it should be on the page of the only notable person to whom it is relevant, namely Mike Huckabee. A.J.A. (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the "updated" version and he's still not notable. My recomendation remains delete. A.J.A. (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an extremely well-sourced bio, famous for multiple incidents, not just one news item. Likely to become more notable in the near future, and probably the research topic of many a college or high school student. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bearian, are you sure we are talking about the same person? Even if he were to pass muster on "Likely to become more notable in the near future", unfortunately then - that point in the future - is the moment that you should say to yourself "Now this guy needs a Wiki bio". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, just because a story is well-sourced does not mean it deserves to have its own page. I think it sets a lousy precedent, with an election year coming up. Paisan30 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You both have points, but maybe I'm just saying he seems notable. Weak keep? Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to think of less people that claim, "if only it wasn't for his dad he wouldn't be notable". Who cares? Even if that was so, does it really matter? Someone isn't notable because they are member of a bloodline, they are notable because they have attributed sources all over the place, even if that is largely because of their bloodline. This guy has three sketchy and controversial incidents on his record, he is the son of a powerful man, has stated intent to go into politics, and as you said, "we have facts on him".
WP:PAPER. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We have no reason to remove this. COATRACK is not a policy for just this reason. There is no good reason to remove a well attributed, wikilinked article, because of some devout republicans opinions on notability. FYI: If someone garnishes enough attention to warrant numerous people to write about a single event, you will be hardpressed to find an admin to strike the article. In addition I can't see a reasonable way for you to merge information pertaining to David's college political track record and achievements into other articles. Take this scenario, what if he killed another dog, and what if he brought another gun to the airport.. Presumably he would get much more press than the first time around, would it then be notable -- because you can bet no matter how many K-9s die, each and every report will introduce David as the son of Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying he's only notable because ogf his dad. Then he would be notable, like Barbara Pierce Bush. My point is he's not notable. A.J.A. (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is a devout Republican? Me? That's funny. I am an Independent, and not a Huckabee supporter in any way, shape or form. Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea to start a biography on his son based on a couple of screw-ups in his life. Nor do I think that a college interview shows an "intent to go into politics". If there were some indication that he was seriously considering that, it would be a different story. Paisan30 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:COATRACK. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete David Huckabee is nobody. The material touching on Mike Huckabee MAYBE should go on the campaign page or main page of Mike Huckabee. If the main page of MH, then preferably not in the criticism section of Mike Huckabee, but rather within the first full term subsection of the governorship. Summarize it. No more than four sentences, tops. But even then, I am not sure if it is notable for Mike Huckabee. Jmegill (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why summarize it? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. All sourced, notable information can go on an appropriate page. You agree the material touching on Mike Huckabee is notable, and yet you ask we truncate the information on the subject. Definitly not the Zeitgeist of wikipedia. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here is that an entire biography of an otherwise non-notable person was constructed around ONE story in Newsweek. That is the only "sourced" story that has any newsmaking potential. Adding all kinds of crap about his misdemeanor arrest (not related to Mike), his college days and the fact that his dad's campaign owed him $1,000 does not make him any more or less notable. Paisan30 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as noted, wikipedia is not paper, and especially remember that WP:COATRACK is not a policy, not a guideline, not even part of the MoS. It has no more vaue than me arguing for keep on the ground that it respects Wikipedia:No Blurry Images.--Aldux (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mike Huckabee, even with the incidents and the fact that it family-related to one of the Republican presidential front-runners, he is not notable enough for an individual article.--JForget 01:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Whatever one might think of David Huckabee and his importance or lack thereof, he is the child of a noted individual, and frankly, Wiki seems to allow that.Kitchawan (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIO, "That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability." A.J.A. (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting, this is in reference to people creating articles for wives and such for what is generally considered blah-information. Such as birth date, death date, and children - things that apply to every human. If the person has done anything newsworthy in their life they are subject to a biography -- if the news has sketchy worthiness such as mentioned in one publication only then it becomes sketchy. Either way, neither of these two policies apply here.
If you have information about notable kids, then they get their own wikipedia page. Look at Cheslsea Clinton (!8 references), Neil Bush (17 References), Marvin P. Bush (2 refs), Dorothy Bush Koch (3 References). I haven't read any of these articles, but the same rules you argue here generally speaking shouldn't apply to them. Being related to someone famous mean you get the limelight, doing anything different means you get notability in wikipedia's eyes. EvanCarroll (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are children of Presidents, not candidates (I guess Chelsea is both). If David Huckabee did anything notable, it would be fine to have a page for him. Getting arrested for a misdemeanor and dismissed as a Boy Scout counselor hardly qualifies. And a single story in Newsweek does not change anything, even if someone suggested that his father helped him out of trouble. Paisan30 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell the difference between someone was dismissed from boy scouts, and someone who expelled as a camp councilor for torturing a dog; but at the same time, you differentiate between the chief executive of a nation, and the chief executive of a state, then you seriously need help. You're direction and arguments are laughable. You've failed to achive consensus, now kindly give up. EvanCarroll (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for that kind of tone. I haven't insulted you, I've simply stated my arguments. I think it's clear that you are wound up about the dog torture allegations, which I certainly understand. I think that someone who would torture an animal should be getting some serious therapy. That has nothing to do with whether David Huckabee is a notable person. Paisan30 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian and others, this person exceeds our standards for inclusion set forth by the WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:44, 23 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Huckabee&oldid=1137769391"