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. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McMurry[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Mr. McMurry has not yet reached the level of state-wide judge, so does not automatically pass WP:POLITICIAN. There are a number of news sources that mention him, but they are almost all local sources and discuss the cases he has been involved in, rather than McMurry himself. This doesn't look like enough to satisfy the guidelines for "any biography" in WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO PETITION

This note is a formal objection to the recent proposal that the article be deleted. According to WP:BIO, the notability guideline for biographies is that multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Kevin McMurry has received coverage from multiple independent sources, including national media outlets such as CNN, CBS and the Oxygen Network, and local newspapers such as the Newnan Times-Herald, who continue to follow McMurry and have been following him since 2008.

The External links page will be updated to include even more articles and credible independent sources, like The Daily Report, which is an established legal publication based in Atlanta, Georgia. Godawgs321 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now, this doesn't meet the criteria of WP:Politician. All of the reliable sources are about cases McMurry was involved in, not McMurry himself. The only sources here about McMurry directly are primary (his own press release and website). An article may be more appropriate if he wins elections. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although many of the sources are about cases McMurry was involved in, the coverage looked at its entirety tells the complete story: a well-respected and accomplished assistant district attorney who received recognition for his cases is now a serious candidate for Judge. The articles about his cases give credibility to his candidacy. He has been featured consistently throughout his career and has been featured for stories on CNN, CBS, The Oxygen Network, as well as the papers in the area where he works. In short, you won't find any candidate who hasn't been elected yet with more favorable news coverage from as many independent reliable sources. Most of the articles are about McMurry's cases, but there are some articles about McMurry himself. Godawgs321 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(continued) The purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate credible information. It would to a disservice to the people interested in the race not to be able to find credible information based on news sources in an online encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. And the truth is, Wikipedia pages usually go to the front of most search queries. If a candidate has the volume of news articles on him and his career successes as Kevin McMurry does, then that should be proof enough of the person's credibility, which is the main focus of the WP:Politician standard. Godawgs321 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Godawgs321 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Godawgs321, and thanks for your comments. You might want to read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies and our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to see the kind of things we need to find in this discussion. If you can list the reliable sources here that you mentioned above - the ones that cover McMurry himself rather than just his cases - that will be the most powerful argument, in my opinion. Sources about his cases will be given less weight, and arguments that the article is useful or contains valuable information will be given very little weight by the administrator who closes this deletion discussion. And also, it's customary to only leave one "vote" in bold in deletion discussions (although in reality they are not a vote). Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cases alone do not show notability. What's needed is some evidence that his career as a whole is notable , based on accounts substantially about him. I do not usually say the accounts must be principally about the subject as long as the subject is covered substantially, but careers like this might be the exception. the articles that are about him are routine for a candidate. I'm willing to accept major party candidates for major national office as notable even if they do not get elected, but this is considerably below that level. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 February 2012 (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.