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 delete. Lord Roem's dissent is duly noted, but the consensus appears to be that the news coverage here agrees with SwisterTwister's and Presidentman's view that the coverage is too routine in nature for the subject to merit a biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as subject lost only election entered (back in 2006). Not found to be notable in any other areas. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google News archives found several results, indicating he was best known for being based in Detroit and the 2006 nomination (they also mention that he is an Army veteran and former police officer), one of the links, this one offers several details about him. This news article notes he "raised little money and trails badly in the polls" and this isn't surprising if he only gained 46%. The article claims he was the first black candidate for Michigan Attorney General in 1974 which is significant but the article can't be kept simply because of this. This news article offers details about his police career and mentions his wife is a judge. Another news article from the time of his nomination here offers additional details about his life but all of this is insufficient. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think his political run as the first black candidate for a high-ranking state office is notable; it received significant news coverage at the time, which noted him because of the uniqueness of his run for office. Under WP:POLITICIAN, for someone who was unelected, the requirement is only significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article subject himself. While a Google search finds only his website (obviously, not independent) a deeper look demonstrates far more significant news coverage from 2006. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I see Lord Roem's point, but I lean towards his cited articles being WP:ROUTINE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:ROUTINE applies here; the coverage is not just "here is who's on the ballot", but "hey, there's something interesting that's getting attention here". For example, this article quotes Howard Dean, former DNC Chair, about mobilizing and increasing African-American turnout. It also mentions his race as uniquely important/interesting about the nomination. With this, we have an independent source which speaks to the the Attorney General race in a non-routine way. Lord Roem (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article cited talks about Dean's comments and only briefly mentions Williams. It's not about him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's true, but it's certainly not 'routine' or 'run-of-the-mill' coverage. He's mentioned specifically in the context of Democrats trying to create a more diverse ticket. Lord Roem (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.