Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryanne Connelly


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Maryanne Connelly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mayor of small town and unsuccessful congressional candidate. fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the referencing is solid per WP:GNG as both a mayor and senate candidate, endorsements from the New York Times, and a NOW award. The references makes the person notable, not the title, or the population of the town, which is what is actually stated in WP:POLITICIAN. The dirty tricks and negative campaign on both sides made it into reference books. --RAN (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that RAN made two edits to his comment in light of the recent WP:HEYMANN, adding per WP:GNG and The dirty tricks and negative campaign on both sides made it into reference books. I am sure that these were good faith changes, many editors are not aware of the need to mark edits they they return and make to a comment after the  discussions has moved on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

*Delete a minor award (one of many New Jersey Women of the year honored by a women's organization ,) mayor of a small borough (pop~8,000), and two failed candidacies. Coverage is routine and does not appear to extend beyond these events, which do not suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Routine defines routine news as "wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, press conferences". I do not see any of that in the references used in the article. --RAN (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we have an article that describes the award: National Organization for Women Woman of Courage Award winners. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Mayors are inherently part of a larger topic on Wikipedia, in this case Fanwood, New Jersey, so Wikipedia's notability is never a threshold for inclusion given WP:SPINOUT and WP:ATD.  Given the additional reliable sources, being a losing candidate for a congress increases the possibility of notability.  We have six different articles with coverage of the topic.  This particular candidate's experiences as a female candidate in 2000 are mentioned in a string of Google Books leading up to 2016.  A WP:BEFORE D1 snippet from Google news I found interesting: It is from Slate magazine, 22 November 2011, How to Hit a Woman: "In 2000, during a Democratic congressional primary in New Jersey, a female candidate named Maryanne Connelly was portrayed in a radio ad as a contestant on a game show. Asked a policy question, the voice playing Connelly replied, “Ooh, that's hard.”" Regarding the NOW Women of Courage Award,  is a link found in Google scholar with a snippet saying, "Amidst gearing up for a new wave of leadership and fine-tuning the organization's rejuvenated voice, NOW members honored Maryanne Connelly, a feminist..."
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

*Delete - Notability is not inherited to an award and no policy whatsoever endorses this award as a freebie for the individual who obtains it. Spin off is totally irrelevant to this article so the mention of it is odd. As always, analyzing the sources available is a must: endorsements, announcements, and passing mentions are either routine or, in the case of passing mentions, do not meet GNG's threshold. I have not seen any evidence in the article or in my own searches that she meets WP:NPOL; Connelly has not held a position outlined in point #1, little significant coverage (#2), and being a local elected official or unelected candidate as she was does not guarantee notability (#3).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the ANI case involving the nom shows me this recent string of AFDs were most likely conducted to make a point. Knowing that, I cannot in good faith recommend anything but a procedural keep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment- Being a losing candidate for congress does not increase notability. As per WP:POLOUTCOMES "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. "--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:POLOUTCOMES is neither policy nor guideline nor essay nor even advice. When used in isolation as an argument for deletion or inclusion, it is circular reasoning.  When used to discount reliable sources, as here, the argument is incoherent.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep After reading the comments of other editors, I searched again. I think that she does have sufficient national coverage (much of it around the special nastiness downloaded onto her out by the the misogynist Republican candidate backed by national GOP money), an aspect of her career covered in some detail in at least 3 books.  Passes GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seeing the breadth and scope of sources about Connelly in the media and press more than meets the standards of notability. Sadly, if the nominator had performed the search for potential additional sources as required by WP:BEFORE, we wouldn't be wasting our time here. The nominator seems to be so dead-set in devoting time to almost exclusively to deletion that the time necessary to consider possible improvements is absent. Were this editor to have any real experience in creating and improving articles, we might see some greater level of discernment between those articles that merit deletion, and those like this one that don't. In dealing with deletion of articles, competence is required; it sadly appears to be absent here. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For at least the third time I will direct you to read WP:AFDEQ. You have a complete lack of civility. If you'd like to voice your opinion here that's fine, but your repeated personal attacks are unacceptable.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And one last comment here (because I really don't want to keep straying off topic). If you are going to reference an essay such as competence is required (most of which I do not agree with), it would be advisable for you to read it first. You are clearly not in compliance with what it suggests, see WP:AllegingIncompetence--Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject's primary congressional campaign is mentioned in several books and the attention of at least one AP story. However, a review of those sources show that the mentions are trivial and are about the 2000 campaign, not the subject. While, the 2000 Washington Post article does suggest that there was some nationalization of the campaign, the exception for a failed congressional candidate is Christine O'Donnell or Jon Ossoff, where there was international coverage, well beyond what is expected of a congressional candidate. Since there is nothing that suggests the coverage of her tenure of mayor was more than routine, and the coverage of her congressional campaign is similarly exceptional, WP:NPOL (as expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES would suggest delete. Note: My other suggestion would be to redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2000 however, that link redirects to United States House of Representatives elections, 2000. The 2000 election campaign in New Jersey's 13th CD is certainly notable, and a comprehensive article could be written about it, but that doesn't mean that the subjects are notable as well. --Enos733 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as you say, the campaign for the House seat drew national attention, the anti-woman aspects of the dirty campaign in particular continued to be written about for years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I am convinced by Cullen that the National Organization for Women Woman of Courage Award is a significant award that would meet WP:ANYBIO. However, I am still convinced that the mentions of her in the post election scholarly coverage is not about her, but is instead about the negative aspects of the campaign, which still merits an article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN, we have WP:RS coverage of the details of her early life; her positions in civic government; her time as Mayor. We also have national coverage of both of her runs for national office. The second campaign for Congress was covered in wire service stories and books, plus more national coverage when the Federal Election Commission fined her opponent over an illegal loan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding the article, but I don't see how any of the new information makes her more notable. Most of the article focuses on the 2000 election. If anything, that information would be great for a new article New Jersey's 7th congressional district election, 2000. Just because the election has tons of coverage and is notable, it does not transfer the notability to Maryanne Connelly.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does Wikipedia's notability say that it is "information" that makes a topic notable? GNG doesn't.  Your standard seems to be new information that you find to be subjectively relevant ("personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content").Wikipedia's GNG looks to see if there is a significant amount of significant coverage.  Your argument doesn't parse as policy based, because when you see additional "significant coverage", you don't see contributions that add toward making a "significant amount".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just in case there was any misunderstanding, let me restate what I was saying in my last comment. The election was notable, not the candidate. Pretty much every source we have there is about the election. As I stated above, losing candidates generally are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If losing candidates are "generally not notable", that doesn't mean that those candidates get deleted. This is because there is also generally a redirect target where the topic is already covered, for example, WP:Articles for deletion/Matt Bevin.  That by itself should persuade you that WP:ATD prevails over WP:DEL8 in the current context.And that is without considering the contributions to GNG significant coverage that that election coverage provides.  Claiming that the sources are about the election and not the candidate fails to weigh those elements of the sources that do discuss the candidate.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I concede that this is a borderline case, and if we were to apply our normal guidelines for politicians in a cookie cutter fashion, perhaps we might conclude that the article should be deleted. I am swayed by several factors. There are many solid sources in the article, including coverage in books, which is uncommon for losing political candidates. The disrespectful treatment of her as a woman candidate attracted an unusual level of attention, as did her own forceful counterattacks. Because her political career ended over 17 years ago, I see no current promotional concerns. For me, the deciding factor is that she was a recipient of the National Organization for Women Woman of Courage Award, which is a prestigious award given to only one to four women each year. In conclusion, I see this as a valuable, useful and well-referenced article of interest to scholars studying the problematic history of women in US electoral politics. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:50, 24 December 2017 (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.