Deletion of Joe Kelly (Freeholder) (2nd nomination)

Comment: The nominator, as part of a series of bad faith nominations, has submitted this AfD, despite the fact that previous AfDs on this and related articles submitted by this same individual have resulted in decisions to '''keep''' articles in question. On top of the clear efforts to subvert consensus, the nominator has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGTraynor&diff=prev&oldid=127029803 stooped to soliciting votes, actions that are almost certainly in violation of anvassing. I strongly recommend that this AfD be withdrawn, given that the process has been thoroughly contaminated by the nominator. As to the definition of votestacking provided at ANVASSING, '''Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.''' It seems undeniable that this line has been crossed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:CANVASSING)

Comment: I agree that Wikipedia is non-static. The problem is that the changes that you have claimed at  between your previously rejected AfD and now just don't exist. I expect that you can provide clear examples of the policy changes to  between the time that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder)|your previous failed AfD was rejected and your current attempt at undermining consensus. Please read the previous AfD and tell me that you can honestly believe that the previous AfD was not on the merits of the article. We have made Wikipedia policy and we reached consensus, one article at a time, and it has been reached for this one. You just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that, even after having only been able to get only one, lone individual to agree with you. How big does the margin have to be to get you to accept consensus? You are following  to the letter. If everyone followed your lead, all we would have is anarchy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:IAR)

Comment: As no source was provided for the only "four hits" claim, a check at www.newslibrary.com using "Joe Kelly Freeholder" found a few dozen, about ten time the number claimed in the nomination. I'll check when I can on LexisNexis which should have a few dozen more. number Multiple, non-trivial |reliable and |verifiable sources are provided to establish |notability under the  guideline, the only relevant Wikipedia policy that addresses such articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: I invoked  to show you that your demands for policies set in stone will not be met, and cannot be met. All of Wikipedia are evolving documents, up to an including the guidelines. What may have met with a weak consensus eight months ago, eight weeks ago, or even eight ''hours'' ago, may or may not meet with a similar result now. A keep result in August may or may not meet with similar results. The article was flawed then, and I said so. The article was not edited even a single time since then. '''Be Bold''' should not mean fighting to the last man in an AfD while the article withers and dies from neglect, no matter what the outcome of the AfD. You asked for 'time'. You got it, and did nothing with it. If you had no intention of doing any improving of the article, as it is so readily apparent, it wouldn't have mattered if I'd waited any more than I have. The 'consensus' you keep trying to throw in my face over these articles were in no way based on the merits of the articles themselves. They were solely based on the lack of a cooling off period before they were re-nominated. This time there ''was'' a cooling off period. You squandered that time. No, there's no policy on how long a cooling off policy should be, and there probably won't be one. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the majority of Wikipedia editors do not feel that a local politician who fails to gain significant notice outside the borders of their home district warrants an article. They use  as their guide, then make their own judgment accordingly. The editors make Wikipedia, not the policies. You're asking Wikipedia to stop changing. To stop evolving. To stop growing. To stop, period
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:BIO)

Comment: The record will also show that this 'solicitation' consisted of contacting all of '''two (2)''' editors who were already active participants in these discussions. As the relevant portion of  shows (quoted below), the Arbitration Committee sees contacting only two people as 'common practice'. I have agreed to refrain from contacting anyone else regarding these AfDs, but have still been accused of acting in bad faith
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVAS)

Comment: Did you just type the words "standards change?" What happened to your mantra of |ignore all rules, when that was convenient. Can you point out exactly which standards changed that entitles you to undermine an established consensus with a clear and undoubted '''keep''' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder)|your previous failed AfD. Again, talk to all these supposed educators and you can have them change  to match your original research. Until then, all you're doing is taking yet another bite when you were completely rejected last time around, a practice that's frowned upon. Which policy are you following / ignoring this time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:BIO)