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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 00:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

James W. Morgan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Marquardtika ( talk) 18:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Birmingham isn't the largest city nor is it the smallest. This isn't a keep vote on WP:NEXIST grounds but I would suspect there should be at least some sources about him, and probably enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep if somebody can actually show some solid sources before closure, delete otherwise. Birmingham is certainly a large enough city that a substantive and properly sourced article about a mayor would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2, but the role is not so "inherently" notable that we would need to keep a short primary sourced stub which states only that the person existed, the end. And while it is true that it's entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a person who actually passes our notability criteria, the saving play in a case like that is not simply presuming that better sources probably exist, but showing hard proof that better sources do exist (and I can't be the angel of salvation here, as I only have access to Canadian sourcing in his era, not the American kind where he might actually have some coverage.) So this needs to go if it doesn't see improvement, and then can certainly be recreated again in the future if somebody actually puts in the effort to write and source something better than this — but as it stands, nothing about him is so "inherently" notable that it would be necessary to keep it in this form. Bearcat ( talk) 19:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I went ahead and added a 1971 obituary and expanded the article somewhat. Looking through newspapers.com, he was racially "moderate" whatever that means, but I couldn't in my quick search find anything about his role in civil rights movements (he did oppose a law in Birmingham banning interracial sports-playing(?)), which would, to me, be the most interesting part of his bio. For a bit of context, see this notable letter to Morgan from MLK. That material may exist and should be included. Without that, his funding the Birmingham Zoo, which initially bore his name, would be the top claim to fame. I'm not saying weak keep because that is a fairly notable thing to have bear your name (even if it no longer does) and proves some lasting interest. Plus, as Bearcat says, Birmingham is a significant city. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 13:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete not enough sourcing to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - mayor of a biggish city for 8 years. Bearian ( talk) 18:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete mayor of a city with under 250,000 population is not inherently notable. The lack of other than local coverage is indicative of lack of notability. The absence of controversy probably contributes to this lack of coverage. It is true that pre-Internet people are harder to document, but notable people get discussed in books, magazine articles and newspapers that can be found on subscription services or in libraries. There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Morgan has a claim to notability. He does not qualify under Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I agree with Smmurphy. There's sufficient evidence of coverage of his political career, especially his eight years as mayor of the state's largest city, which was bigger then than now (in 1960, it had some 340,000 people) [1]. A first cut at GBooks turns up a number of sources about his conflicted relationship to the civil rights movement, including the university press books "The Most Segregated City in America": City Planning and Civil Rights in Birmingham, 1920-1980 [2] and But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle [3], as well as the Pulitzer Prize winning Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama, the Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution , which among other things notes that the closest thing Birmingham had to a traditional political machine at that time was "the outgoing mayor Jimmy Morgan's network of faithful employees and interested city contractors", known to some as the "House of Morgan". [4] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep he's covered in books and scholarly sources on the Civil Rights Era, and his role in the Birmingham Botanical Garden and Birmingham Zoo can be sourced. Article needs improvement, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 06:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Birmingham Alabama may not be a first rank city but, at that point in its history, in the Civil Rights Era, it certainly wasn't insignificant. It's unlikely that any expansion of the article would (or could) end up as a hagiography. Cabayi ( talk) 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Mayor of a global city is generally considered notable. While not a top-tier global city, it's still one on the article for it. Don't know what User:Cabayi was saying about civil rights because I don't believe he took action for or against it, but he is notable regardless. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 16 October 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.