Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth P. Thompson

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth P. Thompson[edit]

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

not notable. Running for local office does not make him notable. noq (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold If Tompson is elected I think he will be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (leaving a redirect) to the appropriate page on the election in question, with no prejudice against recreation after a successful election. This is a well established situation at AfD, unelected candidates not meeting GNG outside of coverage relating to an unsuccessful or ongoing campaign have by consensus ended up as Merge/Redirects to the campaign article. My own personal preference would be for a lower bar, but I can live with the consensus... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect preserving page history either to New York v. Strauss-Kahn, where the subject is already mentioned repeatedly, or to a page on the election, which currently does not have a page but seems to be generating a lot of news coverage, mainly due to the subject winning against the incumbent in the Democratic primary and the incumbent then standing on the Republican line against the subject in the general election. The subject already has some notability in connection with at least two different events, and assuming he wins in the current election (for which he is favorite), even though county district attorneys are not automatically notable, notability seems almost unavoidable when the county is coterminous with Brooklyn. PWilkinson (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a platform fro electioneering. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. First off, he won the Democratic nomination, which is tantamount to election in Brooklyn. He defeated the longtime incumbent Hynes. Second, the Kings County DA is the public prosecutor for a jurisdiction of about 2.5 million people. That's almost as big as the city of Chicago, or larger than San Francisco, Boston and Detroit combined. --- Take a look at how much independent coverage Hynes got during his tenure (for example: 974,000 Google hits); Thompson will be under the same kind of constant scrutiny. He will be accountable for every criminal prosecution in the largest subset of NYC, so his motives and priorities will constantly be questioned for as long as he holds the position. This post is not for some shy back bench time-server, rather, it means being at the center of every controversy and debate about crime in Brooklyn. Kestenbaum (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Yes, Hynes is still running, on the Republican and Conservative lines, but for him to beat Thompson is pretty much inconceivable. Brooklyn has seven times as many Democrats as Republicans, and it has been almost a century since a Republican borough-wide candidate won more than 37% of the vote. See, for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] --- Besides, it's only 13 days to the election, and it would be silly to delete now, when it will need to be re-created in a couple weeks. The article as it stands is totally inadequate, but there will be enormously more material available in the coming weeks and months. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kestenbaum. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2013 (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.