Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Simmons

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. It looks like there is no actual evidence of notability here, as all the sources presented so far have been contested on the grounds of not satisfying WP:SIGCOV, with only weak rebuttals or none at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Simmons[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)

No ind. coverage from reliable sources. May not meet WP:GNG. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftification (in absence of proven reliable, independent source coverage that is both in-depth and at-length in at least two other sources beyond the BET article identified by Rosguill) Whether this subject qualifies as meeting our supplementary notability guidelines (SNGs), that's not a substitute for passing WP:GNG. My review of the non-duplicate Google web search and Google news search shows no independent, reliable source coverage is both in-depth and at length. Most the press mentions are passing mentions, in reference to Mr. Simmons' television appearances, being quoted in the mass media, or articles he has written. Nothing on which we could write more than a perpetual, stub-class article. As such, regardless of any potential SNG pass, fails WP:GNG. This reminds me of the Erica C. Barnett AfD about a non-notable digital news reporter and Internet blogger that closed as delete. Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was able to find this profile on BET, so we do have one example of significant coverage in an independent source. That doesn't get us all the way to GNG, but I did find pages upon pages of search results featuring trivial or non-secondary coverage of the subject, even after filtering out articles written by Simmons (by excluding search results from publications that Simmons has written for) which means that it's not impossible that there is more significant coverage buried out there that I didn't find. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Good find about the BET profile, though I'm not certain I'd qualify that as "in-depth," so I'd prefer to find at least three other in-depth sources before I'd consider changing my !vote. I wouldn't be opposed to a draftification, without leaving a redirect, of this article either. Doug Mehus T·C 23:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, honestly my "weak" qualifier is more due to the mountain of search results than due to the BET profile; if I was confident that I'd read through every article mentioning Simmons on the internet I would have voted delete without qualifications. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've added to my own !vote and rationale that draftification is a solid outcome here in absence of proven significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a press release from The Hill which names Simmons. But focused on Hill.TV launch. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rdzogschen, Yeah, and it's a press release, which wouldn't meet our definition of a reliable, and independent source. Like you said, I'd call it non-qualifying coverage. Nevertheless, we can't really keep this article without proving we have at least three in-depth and reliable, independent sources, which is why I think draftification is the answer. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so long as improvements are being made, and this would move it out of indexed Main: namespace where the subject benefits from search engine optimization. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not disagreeing as 42 fan, but officially THREE is an essay in the user namespace. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finding a journalist’s bio on a site doesn’t mean much, however if the was an article that was interviewing the subject about his career on a third part news site would be notability attribute. I fail to see anything that shows notability. Journalists are always getting passing mentions after all it’s their field but it doesn’t mean every journalist in the world is notable or does it? Jaxbrother (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The content about the subject need more expansion and slightly missing out on notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though Simmons is less notable than Krystal Ball, it looks like we could easily double the number of sources that this article uses. Some of the ones that focus on him entirely are: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Connor Behan (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link 1 is an interview without any independent coverage of Simmons as a subject. Links 2 and 3 are also interviews, although they open with a paragraph about Simmons' career, so they contribute a little bit toward notability if the publications are reputable (3 boasts a fully professional masthead; 2 does not). Link 4 does not appear to be independent, as the context would suggest that this was a blurb written to accompany Simmons' speaking at an event hosted by the publisher. All told, I think that between link 3 and the BET profile I found earlier, we're coming close to GNG, but I'd like to see another example of independent and significant coverage before changing my vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Agreed. I think with such little coverage, the strongest case could be made for draftification here. What do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I'm not overtly opposed to draftification, but I'm not sure I see it as any different than deletion. Essentially all of the sources which have been found that contribute to notability have been raised in this discussion; they are not currently cited in the existing article. And without an editor in this discussion that has expressed a clear sense of ownership for the article, the draft would probably end up languishing in draft space forever. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, I'm just thinking this would be a way to preserve the article's editing history in Draft: space if we don't end up finding another, independent, and thorough source about this political strategist/pundit. We may well find that additional source; this is a very borderline case of whether we "keep" or "delete." Doug Mehus T·C 22:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the Washington Post blurb. A lot of stuff out there seems to have similar independence issues but I was able to find these links: [5], [6], [7]. Connor Behan (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment::Link 1; Simmons is just doing his job as a journalist it doesn’t make him notable. Nowadays everything gets online and is easy to find, before when news was in print you couldn’t find someone like you can now. It’s too easy to Find a journalist’s work and passing mention. I still believe if this article passes then every professional journalist in the English speaking world can get a Wikipedia article done for them. Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my comment above. Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not many sources and his work history is mundane. Bring him back if he writes a book. Dorama285 00:02, 03 February 2020 (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.