Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Bagwell

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. Sandstein 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Bagwell[edit]

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

Minor political figure; only claim to fame is being a candidate for governor (amassing 4% of vote). No non-trivial coverage, just passing mentions, and as such doesn't come close to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is about the first Republican to run in the general election for governor of Louisiana in 24 years. Bagwell also played a role in the effort to revive Louisiana's moribund Republican party apparatus and to get the pro-Eisenhower Louisiana delegates seated at the 1952 Republican convention, thereby securing the nomination for Eisenhower. (See, e.g., this 1952 AP article and this law review article.) As such, he played a meaningful role in Louisiana politics, and its long term transformation from yellow dog Democrat to Republican bastion. I agree that there's some extraneous detail in the current version of this article, but I don't think our coverage is improved by deleting the whole article. If we don't want a separate article, the better solution would be to merge and redirect to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1952, not to delete it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with merge/redirect, though he's already mentioned in the election article you mention above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while the passing mentions are not "significant coverage", we are talking about early-1950s Louisiana. Many paper records are still being digitised (see those few Google Books records that do exist) and online coverage is predictably scarce. That said, I'd argue that his contribution to Southern politics (his "field") is significant enough for him to pass WP:ANYBIO#2. We're not talking about someone people are trying to "promo" for election now (60+ years later). I think there's value in keeping this article as part of the enduring political record of the region in that era. But I agree that at present, there's not a lot of significant coverage there, such that a strong case is difficult to make. I certainly don't fault the nominator for bringing it here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't object to Wikipedia covering Bagwell's election bid, but that's already handled in the gubernational election article, and the first two paragraphs of the "political life" section his Bagwell's article could be easily merged to the gubernational article without bloating it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly disagree with any of that. If that's the way consensus goes, I'd not object. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with that solution is that in 1964 he was a visible and vocal opponent of Goldwater and an advocate of moderation in the Louisiana GOP. See [1][2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4 percent is all he could obtain in 1952, where there was virtually no Republican Party in Louisiana. The article is important to the history of the Republican Party of Louisiana, which a half-century later became the state's majority party statewide and in the legislature. I missed the part about the 1952 Convention but Arxiloxos found and added it. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (yak) @ 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bagwell has not gotten the most intensive of coverage, but there is enough source material to write an article about him. While this is very borderline, I believe a keep is the best outcome due to Bagwell's historical significance and the fact that some sources do exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:51, 24 January 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.