Deletion of Thomas Jackson (police officer) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Per . Note that not even Michael Brown has a standalone article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: The most senior police officials in a state, even a small state like Rhode Island, would be considered notable as officeholders at the state or province level, as per olitician.  So would the most senior police officials in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Nunavut or the Falkland Islands, as the level immediately below the Federal level counts -- even if its population is small -- as per olitician.  Meanwhile, the chief of Police of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, wouldn't merit coverage, unless they measured up to the criteria of the .  If Jackson measures up to the criteria of the  he merits coverage.  Period.  Why don't we have individual articles on the hundreds of thousands of individual who are currently Chiefs of Police around the world?  Those individuals haven't done anyything to stand out.  They haven't appeared on Sean Hannitty's show.  They haven't had commentators from across the political spectrum, make observations about their job performance, or their motives.  Second, nominator called upon the authority of a (mis)interpretation of the COATRACK essay, claiming that the article currently an ''"attack article"'', or is shaping up to be an ''"attack article"''.  If Jackson has said or done something that is extraordinary, it is absolutely not an ''"attack"'' to cite good references that say his actions are extraordinary.  Or, the reverse, if Jackson didn't do the usual thing, and good references say so, using those references to cover however he behaved extraordinarily, would not make this an ''"attack article."''  And if the good references refute claims Jackson said or did something extraordinary, and the article uses those references to say '''''that''''', that too would not be a an attack article.  Has Jackson said or done something extraordinary?  Maybe.  Usually when there is strong reason to suspect a police officer has committed a serious breach of their local code of conduct, the officer is generally suspended, with pay, and the superior decline to comment, instead, when asked, they express confidence in the neutrality and judgment of the third party called in to perform a review of his conduct.  If Jackson didn't suspend the shooter; if he failed to make sure the scene was secured; if he has taken sides, and tried to defend the shooter and his colleagues, then I strongly suggest this would all be highly notable behavior.  On the other hand, if Jackson did none of those things, but less reputable sources say so, then, frankly, it would be irresponsible to not cover the refutation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a tough call for me.  Nonetheless, I make my !vote or the following reasons.  While |consensus can change, it might take more than 15 days; therefore I am reluctant to ignore just closed AfDs.  Furthermore, we do not have many articles on police chiefs in suburban municipalities with a population of 22,000.  This indicates such practice is such officials tend |not to be notable.  Indeed, most of Jackson's coverage is in the context of the Michael Brown shooting and the ensuing unrest, and he is is properly discussed in |article about those event.  It may be there will be more coverage about him, and his notability can be revisited at that juncture.  Further, while his department may be under investigation, merely being under |federal investigation is not grounds for notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:NPOL||WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME)