Deletion of Hong Tran

Comment: and '''Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR''' The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Washington Times articles alone satisfy 's requirement for significant non-trivial press coverage. AfD is not for resolving edit wars
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I just want to point out Nottingham's use of the term NPOV above.   is a policy that applies to WP articles.  Talk pages, AfDs, etc. are places where we express our own viewpoints on the article content and related issues.  Saying that my contributions to an AfD page are non-NPOV is meaningless.  Furthermore, I am absolutely not issuing any personal attacks against Nottingham; I have noted specific instances of uncivility and his blocks, and pointed people to his writings on various talk pages so that they can review them for themselves to help evaluate the credibility of his arguments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I don't know why the push to delete this article bugs me so much. Perhaps because the people who started this deletion push also have strong POVs re: Tran as evidenced by their editing histories. In any case,  links to a candidates criteria page where one finds the only statement on notability: "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." It's clear from reading the article that Tran has received significant press coverage from state sources to merit inclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Failed Senate candidate, does not meet  in my opinion.  The references in the article are all local sources... there just isn't enough here to establish a strong case per  in my opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: My concurrence was that the history of the Hong Tran article was a mess, due to the edit war.  It was heavily redacted during the days leading up to the AfD request, which made it difficult for people to see what the article actually consisted of, and how much press she had gotten.  I'm sure it's also difficult for people to sort through all the issues of the edit war itself, which is why it should have been in mediation instead.  If you were saying something different than that, then I don't concur.  I certainly don't concur with Nottingham's analysis of what you wrote -- just because you said you didn't have all the facts, I didn't conclude that you thought I had given inaccurate information.  If you do, please specify, because I believe that everything I have said is accurate.  I'm not dealing with Nottingham's allegations anymore at this point because I don't feel it is productive; I would be surprised if anyone who views his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nottingham&action=history talk page history, with it's repeated blanking of admin comments, would give his allegations any credit at this point.  My contention was and is that this AfD never should have been nominated in the first place, because it was an edit war issue.  In that sense, I agree with your second opinion (the switch to Strong Keep, because it is an edit war issue).  I think it is appropriate for the AfD to end, as long as the article is kept; but there is no reason why another one should be started.  I would expect that a second AfD would have similar results anyway.  I also think that this AfD has shown that there is a significant number of people who think that Hong Tran has sufficent notability to meet , which is the technical basis upon which Bobblehead was submitting it, even if the practical purpose was to end the edit war.  Anyhow, it seems that the whole purpose of AfD (since we are in the process, regardless of whether it was proper or not) is to reach consensus.  I will propose '''Keep''', with a scheduled re-evaluation after the Nov. 2008 U.S. Congressional elections
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)