Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Woods (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Woods
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page has been nominated once. At the time, I opposed it. However, I think he has a clear notability problem. He only got 8% of the vote and I have heard little from him since he lost the election Casprings (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I think I was wrong before and this is something that should be deleted.  He hasn't been heard from since he lost in a democratic primary, winning a very small amount of the vote.  He seems to have returned to be a private citizen.  As such, this should be taken down.   He is not N Casprings (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'm striking out the word "delete" since your delete !vote is assumed as nominator - and you can only "!vote" once. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete (Changing to Keep, see below) Certainly not qualified under WP:POLITICIAN. I tried to find notability for him under WP:BIO, and I added a reference to the article which says his campaign received "national attention", but I couldn't find much other evidence of that national attention. Probably not enough coverage to qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  04:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think he qualifies under WP:BASIC. He has received coverage in the Washinton Post, and the claim of him attracting "national attention" seems to stem from the New York Times. With this and the numerous mentions in local and special interest publications, I think there is enough coverage for us to keep the article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep based on the additional sources found by Mr. Stradivarius. Nice work! I have added them to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I really don't get the standard. It is suppose to be persistence of media coverage.  Yet Sandra Fluke was delete and this is a keep?  I just don't get it.  Casprings (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (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.