- 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. JohnCD ( talk) 14:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Brendan F. Kelly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DA of a large metropolitan county such people might be notable, but not necessarily. It depends on wether they've done anything that;'s more than routine.Usually they have not, but it is possible nonetheless to fill a long article with all the trivia, and have it referenced, for most people in such an office make sure they are mentioned in every news story on every criminal case in the country. This article is an example: not one of the cases mentioned is important, yet all of them have received passing coverage from local news sources.
The net result is a promotional campaign biography for the next election. I assume that peopele in such position will acquire some negative comment also, bt it ; but nothing of the kind is mentioned here. not mentioned here. Would need complete rewriting , and even so, it would still fair notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:BIO & WP:GNG don't fail, and it contains many references, although the sources continues to be dim. Rinfoli { *Di§cu$$ with me"#} 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The subject does not clearly pass WP:POLITICIAN although as DGG points out, it is possible that such an office holder could be notable. The massive problem here is that the article has a distinctively promotional tone, violates WP:NPOV, and reads like campaign literature masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This article was written by a single purpose account who came here to write this puff piece and then disappeared. If some energetic, neutral editor whacks away at this hagiography with a machete, I will reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as hagiography and cherrypicking of the content of refs. Open to rewrite as per User:Cullen328. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as promotional advertisement inappropriate for encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2014 (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.