Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Glassman


 * 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. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Mary Glassman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician. Held a low level political office on two occasions that does not rise to the level of WP:NPOL. Sources do not establish WP:GNG. She lost the primary election yesterday, so it's not even WP:TOOSOON, there's no indication she will become notable. I wouldn't object to redirecting it, but I wouldn't object to deletion either. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I added some additional material and references.  The nomination asserts "...does not rise to the level of WP:NPOL. Sources do not establish WP:GNG."   Hmmm.  Usually, in discussions of failed candidates, those arguing for delete assert every important candidate for election will have local papers cover the candidates local appearances, local endorsements, positions on local issues, and, since every candidate gets this kind of coverage, it does not establish wikipedia notability.   In my opinion, it is a mistake to ignore ALL local reporting as mundane.  Some local reporting can be of the exceptional kind, that established notability.  If the failed candidate had reporting that they were the first Gay candidate, first disabled candidate, etc, I think that establishes some notability.   So far I haven't seen any coverage like that, for Glassman.  But one of the additional references I added was to an article about Glassman in Politico, an important media resource on American National politics.  National, not local, so establishing some wikipedia notability.  Further, the article asserts something exceptional, that the US Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of her was a very rare phenomenon, as the Chamber hadn't endorsed a candidate in a Primay for 8 years.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was adding coverage of HOW A STUNNING UPSET AT A CONGRESSIONAL CONVENTION LED TO CALLS FOR A VOTE-TAMPERING INVESTIGATION when my computer crashed, and I lost my work. I don't have time to re-add it today.  So I strongly recommend anyone inclined to accept at face value the assumption this nomination complies with WP:BEFORE take a look at it first.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think that much matters because that Intercept piece, like all of the other ones, is about the election, not the candidate in the election. Same with the Politico piece, it's about an organization endorsing a candidate. Hardly in-depth coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The individuals we cover are notable primarily for the things they do, and say, and the events where they play a meaningful role. Some deletionists argue for the deletion of articles on individuals when they lack biographical details, like year of birth, where they studied, where they were born.  But everyone is born, practically everyone goes to school.  Clarification please -- is this what you mean by "in-depth coverage"?   My go to counter-example is False Geber, who Isaac Asimov included in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science.  False Geber was a medieval figure who was the first to describe how to make Sulfuric Acid.   I call him the first sockpuppet, writing under a false name, the name of someone already famous.  So we don't know his date of birth, nationality, occupation, or even where he lived.  We know absolutely nothing about him.  Nevertheless, he measures up to our notability criteria.   If you are arguing  for the deletion of this article because of a lack of in-depth coverage of Glassman, could you please be specific as to what you think is missing?  The Intercept said where she worked.  The article already says who she was married to.  Frankly, I didn't look at the coverage of her in the local Connecticut papers, as I anticipated those arguing for delete would dismiss them all as mere local coverage.  But it is likely that they would cover her age, education, birthplace.   So, help us out, what is it you think is missing?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's missing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article cites her campaign website. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , didn't you say you tried to comply with BEFORE? Didn't you say -- immediately below you only found one reference (from the Connecticut Mirror)  that provided solid in-depth coverage?  But now you seem to be focussing solely on the references that have already been included in the article...  Sorry, in my opinion this falls short of compliance with BEFORE.   I found other references that provided meaningful coverage of Glassman, and I will list some of them below.   In my independent search for references about Glassman I concluded she is not someone known for a single event.   In the independent web search you conducted, before you nominated this article, did you read about Glassman's controversial resignation from her eighth term as Simsbury's First Selectman?  In her 8th term the Republican had a supermajority on the city council.  City Council then took two controversial steps: they removed key responsibilities from the office of First Selectman, and assigned them to other members of the Council; because the position of First Selectman now had significantly reduced responsibilities they reduced her salary by one third.  Glassman resigned - over the sudden and arbitrary removal of authority, not over salary, she said.  After accepting her resignation Council restored the First Selectman's salary...  So, did this generate significant news coverage?  Yes.  It is one of the reasons Glassman is not someone known for a single event.   Between her first four terms as First Selectman and her second four terms as First Selectman Glassman (1) served as a lobbyist; (2) held senior positions in Connecticut's State government, including the Lieutenant Governor's Chief of Staff.  Does being a lobbyist or serving in one's State government establish any notability?  Maybe not.  In general it depends on whether those activities generate any press coverage.  Glassman's activities as a lobbyist and member of State government did achieve some press coverage.   Only a limited number of individuals we cover have their notability established by a single factor.  Individuals who haven't measured up to a special purpose notability guideline, like for winning a Victoria Cross, or holding a State or Federal office, have their notability established by GNG.  I suggest that GNG should be observed by fairly adding up the cumulative notability established by notability factors.  Almost none of the notability factors of most individuals would establish their notability, all by itself.  Most GNG individuals have their notability established by adding up all the notability factors.   Glassman has multiple notability factors.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! # of paragraphs || date || reference
 * + some other independent references that provide more than passing mentions of Glassman...
 * 29 of 29 || 2014-12-31 ||
 * 29 of 29 || 2014-12-31 ||


 * 12 of 12 || 2013-10-28 ||
 * 12 of 12 || 2013-10-28 ||


 * 12 of 12 || 2015-02-06 ||
 * 12 of 12 || 2015-02-06 ||


 * 7 of 7 || 2018-04-03 ||
 * 7 of 7 || 2018-04-03 ||


 * 18 of 24 || 2014-12-08 ||
 * 18 of 24 || 2014-12-08 ||


 * 21 of 25 || 2014-12-01 ||
 * 21 of 25 || 2014-12-01 ||


 * 11 of 41 || 2018-05-18 ||
 * 11 of 41 || 2018-05-18 ||


 * }
 * And of course I followed WP:BEFORE. This piece is solid in-depth coverage, but it's the only one I found. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad you did your own independent search for references, and weren't just relying on those the article already used. My point was you used wording open to the interpretation your nomination was based solely on the references used -- unfortunately a common practice at AFD nowadays.  The reference you linked to, a July 26th profile, in the Hartford Courant...  It is full of biographical details.  You wrote that it was the only one you found.  Does this mean you are disputing its accuracy, independence, reliability?  We don't require every reference contain every point in our article that requires substantiation.  We routinely add references to articles that add substantion for just one single fact.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hartford Courant piece is great. I am saying that it and the other cited sources do not clear the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One in-depth piece and coverage of the election isn't "significant". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete respectable public service career, but no major offices held, non extraordinary coverage on the national level, no notability outside political career, and she just lost her primary to the Party nomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I agree with the above discussion, but she might be notable as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in NPOL about perennial candidates. Either there is sourcing for a page (which some perennial candidates get, others don't) or there isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to its deletion. I just think there might be coverage that, as a whole over several campaigns, could be considered significant enough to push her over the bar. Reasonable editors could disagree, hence "weak keep". Bearian (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But.... any form of "keep" vote means you object to its deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:DEADHORSE. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Upon review I don't see any sources that help her pass WP:GNG as being independently notable from her campaigns, or showing her campaigns were particularly noteworthy. SportingFlyer  talk  23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected candidates are not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , as a very prolific contributor here, you must know this is not what the relevant guideline says. Officeholders at the Federal or State/Province level only have to measure up to the notability criteria established through WP:POLITICIAN.  The notability of failed candidates, perennial candidates, and Municipal candidates has to be determined through a fair deliberation of whether they measure up to WP:GNG.  No wikidocument says "unelected candidates are not notable."  Could you work harder at making sure you follow your opinions with a policy-based explanation?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unelected candidates are not notable for being such, and it takes an awful lot of coverage for them to be notable for anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 18 August 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.