Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Williams Hearn
For those who feel that a losing major party congressional candidate should automatically be considered , that would be reason to vote "keep" here.  That question has come up four times on .  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 http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1156660213265020.xml&coll=1 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 .  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
— User:Mwelch, 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)