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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McKenna[edit]

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

As an unelected candidate for state office, this person fails the notability guideline for politicians. As an assistant professor, this person failes the notability guideline for academics as well. Secondary sources exist but are local in nature; no indication that this person will be the subject of continuing coverage. VQuakr (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would point out this individual received nearly 30,000 write in votes which according to the mass secretary of state is a United States and Massachusetts Electoral record. Also, as this individual received 37% (837,813) of the vote and was covered nationally in for instance AP articles [1] it would be kind of strange if he was removed and yet we kept Jill Stein who got only 31,000 total votes period in the election and received only a mere 1% of the vote. My understanding is notability does not go away. However, I would agree with RG I should just afd the other third partiers that get no votes rather then keep this guy who was really just a fill in -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You're quite correct that notability doesn't go away, but that presupposes the subject's notable in the first place. WP:POLITICIAN gives no pass to failed candidates, and getting 37% of the vote against an embattled candidate is an old-fashioned asswhupping. What is the source, by the bye, for your assertion that this is a Massachusetts OR a United States record for write-in votes? It is neither; go take a peek at the Write-in candidate article, for instance, which has numerous candidates passing that bar in Massachusetts. Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, won the Massachusetts Republican primary in 1952 with a quarter-million write-in votes. (And FYI, no one will stop you from filing an AfD against any other failed candidate you believe is not notable.) Ravenswing 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete There's so little information in the article it can easily be merged into the election article. imo this is a case of 'notable only for one event'. iow, his notability as a candidate doesn't extend to having his own article. I only worked on it earlier (adding the usual non-partisan links and a link to the actual election article) because it was created the day before the election, preventing a serious discussion of whether or not it should exist. Draw your own conclusions. I am totally fed up with the whole process here, especially the lack of concern by Admins. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jftr, I have now restored my original statement after Tracer9999 'edited' it. Her edit summary claimed something entirely different, of course. And that, dear friends, is just another example of why I'm so fed up with what's going on. Flatterworld (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see how he has done anything noteworthy enough to have his own article. Maybe a by-line that stated he did receive such and such number of write in votes would be appropriate on a page covering the election itself. Article seemed kinda biased even in the few words it does have.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POLITICIAN has no prohibition against candidtes who do not win a general election. As a state-wide major party nominee, there is significant, in-depth coverage[2] as required by the WP:GNG. The write-in campaign result was notable, and garnered coverage beyond the local level. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:00, 21 November 2010 (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.