Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey Walsh


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  03:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Bailey Walsh

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article lacks any reliable sources. I was unable to find any other sources that said anything that is for sure about this person. There was an attorney named Bailey Walsh, who worked for the federal government, but I was not able to find much about that person, and nothing that for sure indicates it was the same person. A Bailey Walsh was an attorney for 2 Chicago companies in 1953, he is mentioned in an over 1000 page federal document from that year. The 1936 mention in a very detailed report (thus a primary document) is probably this Bailey Walsh, and from it we learn that at some point prior to 1936 he was assistant US attorney for the western District of Tennessee. Being a US attorney for a specific district is at least a strong indication of notability, being an assistant is not, so the non-secondary sources I find on what is probably this person indicate his postions are not notability giving, and I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that mention him at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, but state party secretary may have been similar to later state party chairmanships, although it might actually be a subordinate position. We have in other discussions held that such positions were not general default notable, we need reliable sources saying something substantive about the individual, which we lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Given the era, it's harder to locate sources bit the nom appears to have tried hard. However, there's nothing to indicate Walsh held any particular position that would have generated significant coverage in multiple reliable sources anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL at all, and there's absolutely no solid sourcing being offered to suggest that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think he passes WP:GNG. A search on newspapers.com revealed sources that provide WP:SIGCOV: ; in addition to these, there are several sources that don't provide sigcov, but fill in the gaps of his life (ex.   ) (I didn't clip most, but they're on newspapers.com ). I think these demonstrate that he was notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging @AusLondonder@Bearcat@KidAd to see what they think. Curbon7 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by Curbon7, which show clear evidence of SIGCOV. Atchom (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Held the top national position in the Republican Party, arguably meeting WP:NPOL. There are now sources providing WP:SIGCOV in the article and additional sources listed above as well as more at newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com, thereby meeting the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sources shared by Curbon7 establish notability NemesisAT (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep per WP:HEY, at this point. BD2412  T 19:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources available through newspapers.com more than adequately satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2022 (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.