Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Walsh (British politician)

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Walsh (British politician)

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

This page fails the notability criteria. This individual is not a widely notable politician they are simply a low level municipal councillor in England. Wider press coverage and actual inherent notability in the individual has not been established. This page there needs deleting in-line with the notability policies of Wikiepdia as Wikiepdia is not a collection of every Tom, Dick and Harry elected to hold public office in England Sport and politics (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local councillor - the commonality of the name isn't helpful in conducting searches for references, but I can't find much about him out there. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. The article contains one citation, for one piece of information. Google search finds a page on West Sussex council website (not independent of the subject), a small number of news reports that don't provide much information, and various passing mentions. Peter James (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that outside his political career, he was also the most senior medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. I'm not yet sure if I think this qualifies him for an article (it carries the rank of captain, not a flag rank), but it's certainly a factor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Local councillor (even long-serving) = NN; failed Parliamentary candidiate = NN; Naval junior officer (medical) = NN. Summary NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that outside his political career, he was also the most senior medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. I'm not yet sure if I think this qualifies him for an article (it carries the rank of captain, not a flag rank), but it's certainly a factor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator is rather more dismissive of the subject's political career than is really warranted - the only reason that the subject probably does not meet WP:POLITICIAN#1 is that we do not regard any level of English government outside the major cities as being (major) sub-national - and thus his thirty years as a West Sussex county (population 800,000) councillor, and the years in leading positions both in West Sussex and more locally, do not count as automatically notable. And his four years as a South East England regional representative on the Committee of the Regions only (probably) fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN#1 because, while the Committee is clearly international, we presumably do not regard it as a legislature (though it does in fact have some weak legislative powers). I would, though, expect someone with a forty-year political career with this variety of near-misses of WP:POLITICIAN to stand a good, though not certain, chance of meeting WP:GNG - but whether we can find the relevant sources, given the subject's relatively common name, the length of the period needing searching and the absence of the Google news archive search, is another matter. PWilkinson (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2014 (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.