Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Buckhout

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 delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Buckhout[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Laurie Buckhout (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)

Non-notable congressional candidate with zero in-depth national news coverage. Does not meet notability requirements of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Getting mentioned in a few articles by local outlets shouldn't be enough to get a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We go through this every few years. WP:POLITICIAN: Just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. In other words: get elected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Don Davis (North Carolina politician) was sworn in a year ago this month as the elected representative from that district. She is announcing her 2025 run for that same office. Go to her personal website linked in the naxbox and click on her website link. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that I did not write this article as a promotional piece. I am not a Republican. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and change my Delete to Comment. — Maile (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, WP:PROMOTION can be unrelated to the intention of an editor, and can instead happen when a subject engages in promotional activities without significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. When sources tend to be brief, based on quotes or interviews, a non-independent profile and a campaign website, deletion also seems supported by the second part of the WP:N guideline, as WP:NOTPROMO (and WP:DEL-REASON#14). Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’m a newbie here. I went to her Wikipedia page to find information that was not available elsewhere on the net to help inform me about the primary election. What’s currently on this Wikipedia page seems fact-based and is very helpful to me. FACTSMATTER01 (talk)< — Preceding unsigned comment added by FACTSMATTER01 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how that's relevant. Per WP:NPOL, being a candidate in an election is not enough for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia of notable people and events. If Buckhout loses this election, I doubt this page will be useful to anyone. People who want to learn about Buckhout can simply read her campaign website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL does not exclude any one. It just grants 'presumed notability' to elected politicians at state level and above, that's all.Djflem (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the fact that she clearly fails NPOL doesn't necessarily mean she's not notable. The reason she's not notable is because she fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage from national outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a clear when the nomination was made, so mention of NPOL is redundant.Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
\ Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just passing by, but Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. Subjects must meet a certain set of notability criteria before an article can be made about them. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notability as a female military officer, not as a political candidate. I've added more sources to the article regarding her role as the first Chief of the U.S. Army's Electronic Warfare Division. Here are some more sources (mostly from the late 2000s, so not in connection with political campaigning) detailing her role as Chief of the Electronic Warfare Division, and as a military consultant, that have not yet been added to the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the difference between these sources and the ones that were already cited on the article. It's just more minor, non-national outlets, and few of these sources give in-depth coverage of Buckhout specifically. Leading a minor branch of the Army doesn't automatically make you notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there does not appear to be support for notability in significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources; coverage tends to be brief and often based on quotes or interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge for coverage as US Army Officer (as above) or to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina where she is already mentioned. Djflem (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources above seem to offer limited support for notability, including because of often being based on quotes or interviews without secondary coverage of Buckhout, or otherwise lacking independence or indications of reliability:
    • The Feb. 25, 2009 Associated Press/NBC News source, "Army updates plans for electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout; it includes two quotes from her as "chief of the Army's electronic warfare division in Washington, D.C."
    • The Aug 2, 2015 Defense News source, "Electronic Warfare: What US Army Can Learn From Ukraine" is not about Buckhout; it includes quotes from her as a "former chief of the US Army's electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group"
    • The Mar 2009 Defense Visual Information Distribution Service source, "Technology, Threats Accelerate Army Focus on Ground Electronic Warfare" appears to be a public domain press release, and is not about Buckhout; there are quotes from her as "chief of the Army's Electronic Warfare Division in the Operations, Readiness and Mobilization Directorate." This source states, "In 2006, Buckhout stood up the Army's Electronic Warfare Division"
    • The Oct 10, 2017 Defense News source, "Eyeing Russia, lawmakers aim to boost Army electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout, it includes quotes from her as "Former U.S. Army’s electronic warfare division chief [...] now with The Corvus Group"
    • The Feb 21, 2020 C4ISRNET source, "Getting the services on the same wavelength about electronic warfare" is not about Buckhout, it has quotes from her as "chief executive and president of the Corvus group and a retired Army colonel who specialized in electronic warfare".
    • The Feb. 23, 2007 defense-aerospace.com source "Army Upgrades Its Electronic Warfare Training" is a marked as a reprinted press release. It is not about Buckhout, but has quotes from her.
    • The Jan 30, 2018 National Defense Magazine source "Army Merging Electronic Warfare, Cyber Ops" is not about Buckhout, but has quotes from her as "retired Col. Laurie Moe Buckhout, who now serves as the president and CEO of the Corvus Group, a Virginia-based consulting firm"
    • The Feb 25/26 2009 Associated Press/Herald Tribune source, "Army boosts focus on electronic warfare" is a reprint of the AP/NBC News source listed above.
    • The James Madison University source "Military Science (Army ROTC) Alumni" is one of the schools Buckhout attended. This source offers a more specific date (June 2006) of her assignment as "Chief, Electronic Warfare Division, Army Operations, Readiness and Mobilization" than other sources, but is not independent support for notability.
    • The 'Federal News Network' source is probably not reliable based on the overall website, and the brief report mentions Buckhout with a quote.
    • SC Magazine is churnalism from the 2015 Defense News source; the overall appearance of this website is questionable.
    • The Feb 26 2009 Associated Press/Fox News source is a reprint of the AP/NBC and AP/Herald Tribune sources noted above.
    • The Jan 3 2007 UPI source, "U.S. Army trains troops for electronic war is not about Buckhout; she is quoted as "chief of the Army's Electronic Warfare Division" and this source restates what is reported in the Army Times.
    Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per beccaynr's analysis. Agreed that the sources above are inadequate in significance and/or independence for GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (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/Laurie_Buckhout&oldid=1204513371"