Deletion of Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination)

Comment: The various subjects discussed in the article have been covered extensively over the past two months by media across the U.S. (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, UPI, The Baltimore Sun, The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Forbes, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, The New York Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, USA Today, Associated Press, Asbury Park Press, Charlotte Observer, Daily Record, Fairfax Times, Las Vegas Sun, The Messenger-Gazette, Star-Ledger, Stars and Stripes, CSP TV,  News 12 Networks, and WHSV-TV).  It has also been covered by media in Canada (Canada Free Press and The Toronto Sun), France (AFP), New Zealand (The New Zealand Herald), Pakistan (Daily Times (Pakistan)), and Taiwan (Taiwan News).  Wolf Blitzer and Rick Sanchez raised it on their national talk shows.  Nor have these been passing references; the vast majority of the indicated refs focused entirely on the matters that are the subject of this article.I agree with the consensus view expressed above that this is a keep.   is wholly inapplicable, as many editors have already indicated.  That is for items such as “routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities”.  What we have here, in contrast, is dozens of articles in major RSs and across the world, over many weeks.  Similarly, Wikipedia:Coatrack not only doesn’t apply to this article, it bears not at all on the issue of the ''notability'' of the various subjects discussed in the article, as JClemens points out.   does not apply, as RSs here cover a number of events, including the background of Woodson, his arrest, his state charge, his federal arraignment, his state grand jury indictment, and related awards – and do so in high-profile national and international coverage, persistent over a number of weeks, in at least five dozen RSs reflected in the article and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_R._Woodson&action=historysubmit&diff=351125567&oldid=351120787 here  (many of which were articles that appeared all across the U.S. subsequent to the close of the prior AfD).  The comments by the minority of delete voters that “nothing has changed” is therefore unsupported by the facts, as a look at the many RS refs in the article and at the refs that WJE has deleted from the article (but which I linked to above), which were printed/reported after the last AfD, clearly demonstrate. Some of the minority delete comments contain synthesis, and/or mistakes (e.g., “He also didn't have maps … which is consistent with others who want to do harm to the country.”), and/or irrelevant comments comments (e.g., criticism of the RSs for covering the subjects so intensely, guesses as to why they did so, crystal-balling etc.).  For whatever reasons, the minority delete voters appear to be turning Nelson’s eye to the clear, notable, ongoing, high-level, national and international RS coverage here, which ineluctably reflect notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: This is pure deletionism in it's most extreme form. The guidelines set forth in  are exactly that: guidelines! Monica Lewinsky, is she not known for only one event? What about Zacarias Moussaoui? ONEEVENT is clearly meant to prevent, for example, the woman who was killed by a whale at Seaworld about a month ago, from getting a biography on Wikipedia. The woman received significant coverage from every single major news outlet: BBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the AP; but does not have an article. People in this discussion  are misinterpreting ONEEVENT. Woodson fits just about every single guideline or rule you can throw at him. &ndash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)