Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Foote Wood


 * 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   no consensus. Scott Mac 12:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Chris Foote Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Perennial political candidate, who has held several local political positions, but never quite achieved a major one. (The general rule of notability for British politicians is that only members of Parliament, MEPs and members of devolved assemblies are automatically notable.) I can't find enough significant coverage of him in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Obviously, if he achieves a notable position in future, this article could always be recreated. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment He appears to have published a number of books. What are the notability criteria for authors? Road Wizard (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After further examination it looks like 10 of the 16 books listed were published by his own company. 1 of the remaining 6 was a local guidebook. That leaves 5 published by an independent company. Road Wizard (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment He was leader of a District Council. Are council leaders generally considered notable or not? Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- As a politican he is on the verges of notability (as council leader for six years), though I think we do not normally have articles on council leaders. As an author, I am not sure.  He is writing for a reputable, though non-academic publisher and has a good list of books to his name (even if some are self-publihsed).  This again probably puts him on the verge of notablility.  Adding these together, I think he just about gets over the notability hurdle.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep agree w/ Peterkiniron. I did a commercial database search of newspapers etc and found over 100 hits. Added some of the book reviews to the article, most of the search results are newspaper stories that contain a mention of Wood, in relation to local politics. None are in-depth about Wood, but the sheer number of mentions across many different newspapers and time suggest he is notable enough. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - This is an encyclopaedia not a repository for here there and everywhere political candidate. It is also not a place for little known authors. To qualify under Notability the individual must actually have been well known at least locally and this has not been demonstrated in the article. This individuals is not notable as a politician and the notability of the individual as an author has not been established. This article should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. And that may just be due to the quality of the article's style. But that aside, the sources are lacking here. Beef up the sourcing and this is a Keep. -- NINTENDUDE 64 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Green Cardamom. If there are no further comments, I suggest the closer consider a "no consensus" close rather than relisting it again. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Still weak keep -- because he is close to being notable in multiple areas, which I add up to just notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 3 November 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.