Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Gilmore


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Glen Gilmore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet notability for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. Only non-local coverage is a short Time Magazine article about how he sent out a police car to get medication after the 2001 anthrax attack, certainly admirable, but his role in the event was small. Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Certainly a man of many great contributions, however, apart from WP:GNG, this article looks very much like a LinkedIn page instead of an encyclopaedia to me. Hence, I am in favour of deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for too long we have let articles on mayors of extremely minor places in New Jersey stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The "extremely minor" township has population 88,000, and is the 9th largest municipality in New Jersey.  See List of municipalities in New Jersey.  The "small" Time Magazine article is behind a paywall, and the "small" role is cited, in the first Ghit on a Google Books search using [Glen Gilmore Hamilton], as an example of leadership during bioterror crisis.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that there are no editors here who claim that the topic fails GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I found this snippet for the 2001 Time article, "In the reception area of Mayor Glen Gilmore's office in Hamilton Township, N.J., hangs a colorful poster from Mrs. Mehedin's first-grade class at Wilson Elementary. It shows 13 hand-colored "awards," each thanking Gilmore for providing the community of about 90,000 with parks, snowplows, garbage collection..."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources in all the usual places (article, web, news, books, scholar) satisfy GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and significant RS coverage not found. 88,000 is indeed a "minor township"; this is not a significant municipality. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG mentioned just this week at DRV, "...the level (50,000) where we routinely include mayors". Unscintillating (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG is wrong about that being the accepted standard. There used to be a consensus that a population of 50K was an automatic in for a city's mayors, but that's since been deprecated — for a variety of reasons, it is now entirely possible for a city below 50K to have at least some of its mayors considered notable, and for a city well above 50K to have some or all of its mayors deemed not notable. A mayor's notability ultimately depends on the quality and volume of sourcing that can actually be shown to support a reasonably substantive article, not on the size of the city per se. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The preceding statement was recently modified to add claims that WP:N creates content requirements, even though the AfD edit notice here states that, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements", and the relevant guideline states, WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're interpreting that exactly bass ackward. I didn't say that notability guidelines apply to content within an article; I said (correctly) that the content of the article speaks toward whether notability has been established or not, in response to an inaccurate claim that a certain size of city confers an automatic inclusion freebie on its mayors. Which it doesn't: a mayor's notability is contingent on the depth of sourcing that can be provided, not on the number of people who happen to have him as their mayor. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff:, and here is lemma of the insertion, "A mayor's notability ultimately depends on the quality and volume of sourcing that can actually be shown to support a reasonably substantive article..." From the lede of WP:N, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." That's it, and there is nothing about "sourcing", "support", or "substantiveness".  And right there in WP:N are the words "content policies", Wikilinked to Category:Wikipedia content policies.  Our content policies, unlike WP:N, are policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Worthy of notice" is determined by sourcing. Not by anybody's personal opinions about what we should celebrate: by reliably sourcing that real attention has been paid to the subject in the real world. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources here about him and his political role meet the notability standard. There are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources aboyt Gilmore to be added and any cleanup should be handled via editing. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, which says regarding local officials: I cannot find reliable sources with in depth coverage of Gilmore. The article's Trenton Times sources only announce Gilmore's candidacy or describe election outcomes, they are not in depth coverage of Gilmore himself. The PolitickerNJ source is literally just a statement that he was not running for office again. Several sources are just lists of mayors that joined an organization or attended an event (and even if those orgs/events are notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). Being mayor of a town this size by itself is far too WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Without WP:LASTING in depth coverage of him, this local politician fails WP:GNG and we shouldn't have a WP:BLP on him. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are five citations available from Google books with a search on ["Glen Gilmore" hamilton]:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It is hard for me to see that these book mentions are more than trivial mentions. In "Managing Crises: Responses to Large-Scale Emergencies," the mention is no more than what is written above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As long as you agree that one sentence can be significant coverage, I think the choice between trivial/significant here is that "Outraged by the state's response, Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore obtained a supply of the antibiotic" is in-depth significant.  This is a sentence that can be used to write encyclopedic material.  "Trivial" is something like a person's name in a phone book.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, context matters and there is no black and white rule when a mention becomes significant. In general, I do not believe a one sentence mention is significant, especially as part of a book that is hundreds of pages long. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It is hard for me to see that these book mentions are more than trivial mentions. In "Managing Crises: Responses to Large-Scale Emergencies," the mention is no more than what is written above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As long as you agree that one sentence can be significant coverage, I think the choice between trivial/significant here is that "Outraged by the state's response, Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore obtained a supply of the antibiotic" is in-depth significant.  This is a sentence that can be used to write encyclopedic material.  "Trivial" is something like a person's name in a phone book.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, context matters and there is no black and white rule when a mention becomes significant. In general, I do not believe a one sentence mention is significant, especially as part of a book that is hundreds of pages long. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, context matters and there is no black and white rule when a mention becomes significant. In general, I do not believe a one sentence mention is significant, especially as part of a book that is hundreds of pages long. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per NPOL(2).Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2018 (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.