Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Mitchell (politician)

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 keep. Black Kite 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mitchell (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. [email protected] (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, he is non-notable because he was elected in 2009 in a special election and was defeated in both the September primary and the general election on November 3, 2009, in which he ran as a third party candidate, thus he will have served a total of only ten (10) months. Although his article seems very substantive, it is mostly campaign election cruft. [email protected] (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What you wrote in that second paragraph seems to me to justify notability, not disprove it. He was elected to the NYC council and will have served in that position for 10 months.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some false positives, but this search shows a number ao articles about the councilman. [1]--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will work to adjust article and omit campaign fluff.SIbuff

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles in Cube lurker's Google News search seem to provide enough coverage. It's in local publications (as one would expect for a councilman), but it is in multiple publications and includes some coverage from before his election, when he was an aide to another politician (e.g., [2]). Not a slam-dunk for notability, but it should be enough for a brief article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2009 (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.