Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzz Patterson

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. Consensus is that this page does not meet inclusion guidelines. The work Dereliction of Duty however might so if it gets a page this can be redirected to the work's page; if someone needs the history of the bio, ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Patterson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication this person meets any notability standard. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless he's promoted posthumously to brigadier general; then... well, never mind.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ The correct criteria here is WP:AUTHOR (or WP:Talking head / activist / etc.). He does not pass WP:SOLDIER - however he's not far (and this does contribute to notability). I don't see the requsite required sourcing in the article or in my BEFORE - though I'm amendable to change my !vote if someone does a HEY.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Modified below.[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am seeing sources. Daily Caller: 8 questions with ‘Conduct Unbecoming’ author Buzz Patterson. His book Dereliciton of Duty appeared on the New York Times bestseller list for many weeks between April and July 2003. Also this article Conservative Authors Sue Publisher New York Times 2007. A proquest archive search turned up this: Buzz Another book slams Clinton, George Rush and Joanna Molloy. San Antonio Express-News; San Antonio, Tex. 20 Mar 2003: 02F. (full text not available). His Deriliction of Duty appears to have gotten enough book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you will add the best seller list and a review to the article, I'll be glad to withdraw this. John from Idegon (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN User:John from Idegon, User:Icewhiz. As you suggested, I added 2 book reviews in reputable places; sourced the New York Times bestseller; added another article, sourced a couple of facts; removed some advertising and unsourced text; tagged some bits for sources. Article isn't much, but I think it now passes the notability bar. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I see how what you added supports notability for Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security (would support WP:NBOOK(1)). For Patterson, are you claiming WP:AUTHOR(3)? GNG? Or something else? Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, frankly. He looks pretty minor, actually pretty fringe in his political views. And yet there have been very occassional minor coverage of his minor doings for years On Hardball, Patterson repeated dubious smear of Clinton, despite his changing story. Mostly, however, there is a book, Dereliction of Duty, described by the Wall Street Journal as an "anti-Clinton book." It got at least 2 reviews in mainstream places: Weekly Standard and Armed Forces & Society, he got to promote it on C-Span [1], gets cited by other Clinton hating writers, and by haters of Clinton haters like Slate (magazine) here and spent four months on the New York Times bestseller list. It sort of all seems to add up to to much to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly renam/merge the Patterson article to Dereliciton of Duty - which I agree is notable. But for Patterson to be notable we need to show GNG of himself or that he was the author a few books that are notable - if all he is notable for is the claims vs. Clinton in Dereliciton of Duty (regurgitated a few times) - it really mainly supports the book.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security, a page to be created for the purpose. Note that when I went to check what links here, I discovered that this page itself is an old redirect from Dereliction of Duty (2003 book). As far as I can find, all coverage of Patterson in WP:RS is related ot this book and the accusations he flings at President Clinton in this book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Rename (selective) to Dereliction of Duty (2003 book) or Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. (Note Dereliction of Duty (1997 book) is entirely separate).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2017 (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.