Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil J. 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil J. Walsh[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don’t think this person passes WP:BIO. The ref cited in the article is the only one I can find. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No viable third-party coverage found. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is mentioned frequently in newspapers and magazines of the period, such as The New York Times and New York (magazine), which is not surprising given his role as the $1 a year Commissioner for Public Events, his involvement in the (American football) Giants leaving Yankee Stadium, the Democratic National Convention, etc, etc. Whether or not he's notable in Wikipedia terms is certainly worthy of discussion, but there are lots of sources out there. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually write and source something much more substantive than this. I can largely only deep-scan for Canadian media coverage in his period of activity, so I can't actually evaluate whether or not he has a stronger notability claim than what little is actually stated about him here — but as written, this doesn't clinch anything by itself, and it takes more than just an obituary in the local newspaper to get a person over WP:GNG on "notable just because media coverage exists" grounds, and even the fact that the newspaper in question happens to be The New York Times still isn't a notability freebie that exempts him from actually having to have a stronger notability claim than just the existence of an obituary. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2018 (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.