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. Davewild ( talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Gale Thomson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable individual, aside from being married to a 1970s Governor of New Hampshire; does not appear to have done anything politically notable herself. Zhanmusi ( talk) 02:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: she wasn't just married to "a" governor of New Hampshire, she was married to one of the most infamous and colorful (and notable) governors in the history of our state. And she did stuff besides politics, too; the part about her running a maple syrup business was interesting (and notable) enough to earn her a DYK entry, apparently. And besides that, the article is well-written and well-referenced, relative to its length. Cooljeanius ( talk) ( contribs) 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Might I redirect you to Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED? However interesting her husband may be, being married to him is not reason enough to warrant having an article. And the maple syrup business is mentioned in only one reference, where she and her business are not even the main focus.-- Zhanmusi ( talk) 19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-notable wife of a local politician who does not meet the general notability guideline. -- Inother ( talk) 11:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Does too meet the GNG. Let's go through it point-by-point:

• "Significant Coverage": The article currently has 5 6 separate references in it, from 3 separate newspapers. And beyond that, she's also the main topic in 4 of them, which the GNG says is supererogatory. I'd say that counts as significant.
• "Reliable": The Boston Globe, Nashua Telegraph, and New Hampshire Union Leader are all tried-and-true newspapers that have consistently been cited as Reliable Sources in other articles.
• "Sources": They're secondary, and they're plural. They're also in English, and (mostly) available online, both of which the GNG says are supererogatory.
• "Independent of the subject": While the op-ed she wrote in the Union Leader might have been by her, the rest of them were all written by people independent of her.
• "Presumed": Based on this, the presumption should be towards keeping unless you have a reason besides notability, which you don't. Cooljeanius ( talk) ( contribs) 15:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Four of the six sources in the article are covering her specifically in the context of her death itself, and not for anything that would meet a Wikipedia inclusion test — if a person didn't qualify for a Wikipedia article in life, then the act of dying doesn't increase their notability. One of the other two is behind a paywall and is thus impossible to verify — but doesn't appear to be substantively about her from what little I can see in the abstract provided, and is being cited only to support where she and her husband lived. But merely being namechecked in coverage of other things does not support notability. And the one about her endorsing Mitt Romney is a dead link whose content is thus, again, impossible to verify — and "endorsed a candidate in an election" doesn't satisfy any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules in and of itself anyway. So we're still left, at this point, with "notable because a couple of newspapers covered her death" — but if that was all it took to get a person into Wikipedia, then we'd have to keep an article about practically every person who ever died in a car crash or a house fire. Bearcat ( talk) 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Notability is not inherited. Being the spouse of a state governor is not, in and of itself, a reason why somebody gets to have her own separate article — if she doesn't independently meet a Wikipedia notability rule for her own independent accomplishments, then being married to someone notable doesn't give her a notability freebie. And nothing here suggests any other criterion, besides who she was married to, by which she would actually qualify for a Wikipedia article. Delete (redirection to her husband also acceptable). Bearcat ( talk) 15:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Thomson was a state political and public figure in her own right, in addition to the position of New Hampshire First Lady (which, in a fair world, is enough for inclusion itself). The Thomson bio has been improved with additional sources and citations, so perhaps this nomination, while unwarranted, was a blessing in disguise. Some additional expansion is absolutely possible (Unfortunately, some of the original citations are now hidden behind archived paywalls due to the age of the article). She has been included in national and international news pieces & campaigns, in addition to numerous, perfectly acceptable local N.H. state sources, and remained an influential state figure.

The Gale Thomson article has previously been featured as a DYK article on Wikipedia's front page in 2010. The article, and her biography, met all criteria for inclusion in DYK and Wikipedia then, and it still does today. Scanlan ( talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: It may not be the case in this instance, but if First Ladies (women) were overwhelmingly First Gentlemen (men), these types of nominations were not come up nearly as often. Unfortunately, it reflects an surprisingly widespread bias that the office/position/post of First Lady or First Gentleman (as well as related lists and biographies) should not be included on Wikipedia, a project with infinite possibilities for both well known and niche topics. There's actually a fascinating bit of history in biographies like Gale Thomson and other state, provincial or national First Ladies/Gentlemen, which fits in with larger historical and political themes. Wikipedia is eventually going to have to re-look at the notion that First Ladies and Gentlemen (and related biographies) should be deleted for a perceived lack on notability. They, and related articles, absolutely meet the criteria, the same with holders of other public official or ceremonial posts. Scanlan ( talk) 12:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: There's enough here for me. Brookie :) { - like the mist, he's here and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 10:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. AfD discussion creator here. You all have made an admirable effort to expand the article and add more sources, but I'm still unconvinced Gale Thomson is noteworthy in her own right. In the new and improved list of sources, for example, seven have Ms. Thomson as their central focus; five of these, however, are obituary pieces, and one is a dead link to an op-ed written by Thomson herself. In only one accessible, non-obituary article is Thomson the main subject, that article being a brief piece from the Mitt Romney campaign on her endorsement. While Thomson certainly remained politically active even after her husband's death, she does not appear to have been anything more than a peripheral figure in New Hampshire politics, never leading efforts herself, and simply lending her support to other people's projects. Aside from having been the widow of a governor, Ms. Thomson does not appear to have done anything more notable than your average, run-of-the-mill politically-engaged grassroots activist has.-- Zhanmusi ( talk) 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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.