Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Zalph

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. ✗plicit 00:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Zalph

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and lacks significant coverage. Only source is a column written by the subject's cousin. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to say that just because we can't find much on the internet doesn't mean the article's subject fails GNG. The article's subject lived before mass adoption of the internet. That being said, I'm not able to find much so may fail GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried the NY Times back files. He's listed in this article with the title: Senate Unit Finds Red Link in Press. But he just gets a mention in a list of people brought up before the committee who took the fifth. He's mentioned in another similar article, just a name check. He also is listed in the Senate report. Unfortunately he was just one of many hundreds who were hounded during the red scare of the 1950's, and he wasn't important enough, as far as I can tell, to merit more biographical information. Lamona (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Sadly, one of hundreds who were blacklisted. The only source in the article is self-published by his cousin, and the two sources since found by Lamona are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest keeping a revised version of this page. True he is one of many pursued in the 1950s "loyalty" hearings but his testimony is notable for its citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the First and Fifth, in support of his refusal to answer questions. Sources (at least one of which would need to be added to the page) are the published transcript of the testimony: https://books.google.com/books?id=z6B9imvD-P0C&pg=PA1014&lpg=PA1014&dq, and this article in CQ Press: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal56-1347749, as well as other newspaper sources including the Galveston Daily News: https://newspaperarchive.com/galveston-daily-news-jan-05-1956-p-2/ and the Billings Gazette: https://newspaperarchive.com/billings-gazette-jan-05-1956-p-1/ . I've been unable to find any reference to any other "loyalty" hearing witness citing the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. His reliance on the Ninth Amendment in the loyalty hearings seems noteworthy in light of the limited history of use of this Amendment prior to the hearings, and the Amendment's more recent growing prominence, as reflected by its later discussion in Supreme Court decisions and the recent statement by US President Joseph Biden to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted "a Supreme Court candidate with a judicial philosophy 'that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847. (Full disclosure: I am a family member.)

Editor 5050 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Removing the sentence in the article explaining why the subject's brother is notable would reduce the size of the stub by 25%. After this much time, it is unlikely further references will be found. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm actually seeing a lot of coverage in 1956 on newspapers.com, but it's mostly AP wire stories (or modified AP wire stories). A bunch of newspapers reporting that he refused to testify in front of congress, pleading a bunch of amendments, is clear WP:BIO1E. WP:SUSTAINED notes that If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. The lack of any meaningful follow-up in the 66 years since his testimony from anyone other than his cousin shows that reliable sources only cover him in the context of a single event. Since he remained low-profile throughout his life, I see no compelling reason to consider him notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (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.