Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hodges


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ken Hodges

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rd232 talk 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate for a notable office does not make one notable. Come election time, it's always interesting to see the SPAs battle over what content should be added and what should be removed: . Location (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN.
 * Subject is not just a candidate for office, also a former office-holder as District Attorney in Georgia from 1996-2008. The office of District Attorney is notable under WP:POLITICIAN since it covers a large metropolitan area in Georgia. Further, subject meets criteria in substantial press coverage as District Attorney.


 * Also, subject's candidacy has received substantial media coverage . and has attracted the attention of major Georgia politicians (UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Fmr. Chief Justice of GA Supreme Court)


 * Disclosure: I created this page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach State Politics (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The DA's office is not "inherently notable" under WP:POLITICIAN #1 as it is not a "first-level sub-national political office". The DA in Dougherty County, Georgia or Albany, Georgia also does not meet #2 which refers to "major local political figures" in "major metropolitan cities". In my opinion, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in #3 refers to coverage of a broader scope that would take this beyond WP:NOT and blogs. Location (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response I agree that the DA's office is not a "first level sub-national political office defined under, WP:POLITICIAN, but I am confused as to the rejection of the DA's office in Dougherty County, Georgia as insignificant. The DA's office represented "95,693" citizens, certainly not a minuscule number, considering that most elected officials in the state legislature represent smaller populations. I would certainly cede the point if this elected official was a minor town official, but instead the subject represented numerous communities, with almost 100,000 citizens. Since Wikipedia offers guidelines on these issues, not strict policies, can we come to a consensus that the guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN are meant to prevent small, localized politicians from creating pages, not to inhibit larger, metropolitan-area wide officials from having pages?


 * Response Also, I understand the premise laid out in WP:POLITICIAN that being a candidate for a notable office does not by default make one notable, but it's evident that this case is not simply an unknown person trying to make a name for themselves by running for a high office, but rather the subject is an established politician who is already well known in his district, and has been the subject of extensive media reporting, as noted earlier. I honestly think we can come to consensus that this subject is admissible under Wikipedia's guidelines, since this article only serves to enhance, not detract, from the amount of useful knowledge on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach State Politics (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: There are numerous newspaper accounts, most notably in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2005, about Kenneth Hodges' abuse of his office and unethical conduct, including his using grand jury subpoenas issued on behalf of local campaign contributors when there was no grand jury in session to obtain telephone records, which he turned over to the contributors in exchange for several thousand dollars. There is currently a federal lawsuit against Mr. Hodges in which United States District Judge Louis Sands has denied Mr. Hodge's claims of immunity and the matter will be going forward for trial. The case number is 1:07-CV-22 (WLS) and the order denying the motion was issued March 31, 2009. Judge Sands' order recounts the abuse of the grand jury and the payment of funds to Mr. Hodges' chief investigator, who was acting on Mr. Hodges' direct orders. Here's an excerpt from the order:

"Upon receipt of the subpoenaed records, Defendant Paulk provided the records, including Plaintiff’s personal e-mails, to private civilians,

Case 1:07-cv-00022-WLS Document 34 Filed 03/31/2009 Page 2 of 24 3 who in turn paid for the information. The subpoenas were never intended to require an appearance before the Grand Jury on any matter pending before a Grand Jury, but were intended to obtain confidential and private records for private civilians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.105 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT:  The following entry from Mr. Hodge's Wikipedia entry is demonstrably false:

"Phoebe Putney

In 2004, the emergency rooms and operation rooms of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (“Phoebe”) were being inundated with faxes sent from an anonymous source. The faxes repeatedly targeted board members of Phoebe, disclosing their names and contact information.[13] Ken Hodges was the District Attorney in Dougherty County, GA at the time of the incident and he responded by subpoenaing the phone records in accordance with Section 16-11-39.1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated."

The Code Section he cited relates to harassing phone calls, which require repeated annoying phone calls to a human being- not faxes sent to a hospital fax machine or to a Congressman's fax machine. That's one of many reasons why the criminal prosecution which Mr. Hodges initiated was dismissed prior to trial- the indictment didn't actually charge any conduct which constituted crimes in Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.105 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable local politician. A district attorney of a large county is almost always notable, and Albany, Georgia, site of the University of Georgia, is within his territorial jurisdiction.  While the office he holds is 'not a "first level sub-national political office', it is significant enough when the county has over 100,000 people and it's a well-known college town.  So it is a safe bet that he is de facto notable.  The fact that he is a candidate for higher office is nice, but not needed to clear the threshold for WP:POLITICIAN.  It would be great to add more sources, and some sections are too long per WP:UNDUE, but that can be solved by the normal editing process, not AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will admit that there is no consensus on what defines "major metropolitan cities" in #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, however, census figures note that there are 100 counties with populations over 600,000. I haven't done a thorough search to find out how many have at least 100,000, but I would guess in the neighborhood of 300 or 400... Dougherty County, GA is roughly 95,000. The point being that we are opening the door for 300 to 400 DA articles to be added to Wikipedia. Location (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting inclusion criteria of WP:BIO under WP:GNG. I look at the dozens upon dozens of in-depth significant articles about this man as found in multiple reliable sources and look to caveat #2 of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". He neets caveat 2 as being local, major for the locale, and for having received significant press coverage... with a lot of it from outside his local.  Yes, the second sentence of caveat #2 gives Mayors and members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city as examples, but it does not state that those are the only local political figures receiving significant press coverage that might be considered. It easily could have, but I note that it specifically did not. The key words of caveat two are in its first sentence. The guideline of WP:GNG has been met.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.