Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Kratz

:{{la|Ken Kratz}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Kratz Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ken Kratz}})

Fails WP:N Casprings1 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC) — Casprings1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:: My apologies on setting up another account. I have been having trouble logging on with Safari. I was also in a rush. That said, I think this is a pretty textbook case of WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.Casprings (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

:::If that's your argument, it fails on several counts, not the least of which that the article already identifies several highly publicized events in which Kratz played a central role and was clearly identified as having done so. It presumably could easily be expanded to include many more, since he was appointed to his position in 1992 and remained in office for 18 years. A county district attorney will not be, by definition, a "low-profile individual", for the simple reason that as a public official their opinions will frequently be sought and they will be frequently quoted in the press. General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

:::: I would respectfully disagree. This is a person of little notability. A local sexting scandal covered mostly locally and being an extremely low level offical does not mean that WP:BLP1E is not the policy we should look at. This article is created shortly after Making a Murderer is released. The creation of the article is driven by that fact on 25 December. The events captured by the documentary is why the article was created and why I came upon the article. On a side note, an absolutely great documentary, but not a reason to have the article.Casprings (talk)

:::::"A local sexting scandal covered mostly locally"? Both CBS News and ABC News are represented among the current references for the article, links to articles produced in 2010 and 2014. ([http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39383413/ns/us_news-life/t/prosecutor-accused-sexting-victim-will-resign/ Here, I'll throw in a 2010 NBC News report] while I'm at it.) Nope, I stand by my original position: Speedy keep as clearly notable. General Ization ^Talk 21:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• KeepSpeedy keep. Subject appears notable both as a public official, and as a public official who was the subject of a scandal that received extensive publicity. (The nominator's status as an SPA is worrisome.) General Ization ^Talk 21:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per General Ization. Further, there are likely to be more sources covering the subject in the near future.--Jorm (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep WP:POINTy nom made due to publicity of Avery doc; even without Avery the 2010 forced resignation by Governor Doyle on conduct concerns would seal a keep on that alone. Nate • (chatter) 07:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per General Ization-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep extensive publicity. I'm sure there are MANY even better sources available then those used. Royalbroil 14:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, the guy is notable for one event. The sexting was just publicized because of that one other event. And there are thousands of district attorneys in the US; being one in a small unknown county is definitely not notable in any sense of the word. This is one of the clearest cases of WP:BLP1E I've ever seen. 32.218.32.92 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 22:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I think if anything, his name should redirect to the article that pertains to him. He's only notable in that one incident, and that's really it. I think a simple redirect to the documentary is justifiable, or create a new article page about the case itself, if one hasn't been created. Nick2crosby (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Kratz is notable for his involvement in the Avery case, the sexting scandal, and his being featured in the documentary, to the extent that the documentary and the Avery case can be counted as separate. As noted by Jorm, there is likely to be continued coverage of Kratz and those associated with the trial, as has occurred with the individuals featured in Serial and The Jinx.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

:Compare to, say, Len Kachinsky, coverage of whom is limited to the documentary; even during the trial there was little coverage of him or his role.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

:Keep for the reasons stated by others. He's also currently giving interviews with major publications. As others have said, there is likely to continue to be more information on him from reliable sources and there are I agree he is notable for his involvement in the Avery case, now the documentary, his resignation. Knope7 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete with redirect per nom. "He will be notable soon" isn't a good reason to keep an article now -- if/when that happens it can be undeleted and expanded.NE Ent 11:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:Keep. He is notable not just for Avery trial but also the sexting scandal. --BaronLarf 13:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:Keep the article This man is an example of what someone in law should not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5AC9:300:552D:AC20:D9A1:8D29 (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.