Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Woods (politician)


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Charles Woods (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Poorly referenced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in various political party primaries. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for office and losing. But this makes no other claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of unsuccessful candidacies, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (such as raw tables of election results). And while there is one actual article about him in a real media outlet listed as an "external link" instead of being used as a footnote, one media hit isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better referencing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Alabama,  and Nevada. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I haven't looked too much into this one, but there are a bunch of sources on newspapers.com I haven't been able to sift through; however, I have to note, this biopsy is extensive. Curbon7 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete passing mentions of deleted candidates are not enough to show that they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - perennial candidate for the highest offices. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Half the article does not have a source and not notable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: perennial candidates, even for high office, are not notable in and of themselves. I am curious, though, about the biopsy cited by Curbon, and also the Newsweek source regarding facial reconstruction/skin transplants. If that can be further corroborated, I'm leaning keep. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 07:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete fails WP:NPOL and passing mentions in campaign reporting and primary sourcing do not amount to a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This man has significance because he was a severely, severely disfigured candidate (surely there’s a picture available), not just because he was a repeat candidate. His willingness to  stand for office and appear on television was noteworthy for the time. 2601:C4:C000:1440:7D0F:9DD3:34CF:F4A2 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Meets WP:GNG due to his historical significance as a repeat candidate with a challenging medical condition. I would assume this article could be considerably improved and expanded upon with additional references but those that are there are adequate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep     seem like enough coverage -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 09:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2022 (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.