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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply

James W. Glasgow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Delete. WP:BLP, written like an advertorially-toned résumé rather than an encyclopedia, of a county attorney. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL or WP:LAWYERS just because he exists, but the referencing here isn't strong enough to give him a WP:GNG pass instead -- it's based very heavily on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, with very little evidence of media coverage that's about him in any substantive way. In addition, there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a user named "Lisamlas" and the primary source website that singlehandedly accounts for 25 per cent of the "sourcing" here lists a Lisa Morel Las as a senior staffer in the office. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; reliable source coverage which properly verifies that he passes a specific notability criterion is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 21:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I think that the biggest issue with the article is it focuses on the Drew Peterson case, and to a lesser extent the use of dogs in courtrooms to help calm children. You may be right about all the points about a potential conflict of interest, in which case that could be raised and addressed. As well as its tone and the sources that are used. I think a lot of people coming in fresh don't understand the importance of reliable secondary sources.

When I take a look though, at what articles come up for Glasgow, there are a lot of articles that pop up, without Peterson and without dog that seem to make WP:GNG -- when you also consider the national coverage received during the Drew Peterson case. I don't see a particular problem having this article - and think it could be built upon. If I am missing something, though, I am open to hearing about it.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Campaign advertisement. One of his cases was notable, and coverage on it mentioned him. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. County level office with little in-depth coverage in independent sources. Much of the article is about the Peterson case, not directly about Glasgow. Much of the material not about that one case is sourced to the Joliet Patch, a small community specific news outlet. This is not significant coverage. MB 02:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:44, 10 January 2017 (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.