Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Williams Hearn

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 and therefore the article will be kept. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gloria Williams Hearn

Gloria Williams Hearn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Failed congressional candidate; received an award from an educators group once. Neither seems to meet WP:BIO. Mwelch 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. For those who feel that a losing major party congressional candidate should automatically be considered WP:N, that would be reason to vote "keep" here. That question has come up four times on WP:BIO. Each time, most opinions were that such individuals should not be considered automatically notable. But there have been a few contrarian opinions who have argued that surely there must be plenty of sources available on such people, so notability should be assumed. I, however, am with the majority, and this subject would be a prime example of why. The election was just last year, but as far as sources go, there still doesn't seem to be much of anything out there about her that's both independent of her (i.e. not from her campaign or from the Democratic party backing her) and non-trivial. Lots of pre-election articles that say "longtime educator Gloria Williams Hearn is running" but really nothing more about her than that. Lots of post-election articles that just list the election results (she lost 67% to 31%) but nothing more about her than that. About the best I've found is this article, which mentions her briefly to say that she was not a serious challenger, but basically was an unknown that was just all the Democrats could scrape up in that race. The article about her that's referenced in this Wikipedia article has nothing to do with her congressional run, but rather is from an educator's magazine, and is about how she given a significant educator's award for her good work over her career. Laudable, but not WP:N. At least that article's coverage of her is actually non-trivial, though. That's more than I can say for any other independent sources I see about her, so maybe that counts for something. Mwelch 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I had been inclined to vote to keep for the precise reason you anticipated. You have changed my mind. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As one of the "contrarians", I emphasize the status of being the major-party nominee. It's not so much that a reader would say, "I saw a reference to Gloria Williams Hearn, who is she?". It's more like, "I know that Rodney Alexander was re-elected in 2006, but I want to find out what I can about his challenger." It's valuable for Wikipedia to have a complete record in this respect. I suspect there's more information available in local newspapers that aren't online, but even without that, I favor keeping. JamesMLane t c 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per james.--The Joke النكتة‎ 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the winners' or election article.Stellatomailing 15:19, 31 May 2007 (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.