Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Simmons (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A consensus emerged that the subject meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Jamal Simmons
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

None of the 3rd party references provide substantial coverage, and the position is not intrinsically notable. The reference in the Shriver book is a single-paragraph author bio of Simmons as one of the contributors; such bios are provided by the person themselves or their agent. The others are just announcements of the appointment. I could find nothing else in Google except brief quotations from his press releases,.  DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. If Simmons had any other notable achievements or positions, I'd say keep, but he seems to lack notability.  He cannot be assumed to be notable by association to the vice president, as high-ranking government officials have tons of personnel and advisors (Office of the Vice President of the United States) who come and go with no lasting accomplishments. —Notorious4life (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FOX News has picked up on the story, but I'm still sticking to the weak delete vote since even the position itself isn't notable on it's own. —Notorious4life (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep He was a notable media commentator before his current job in the Office of the Vice President of the United States. --evrik (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * which sources do you thinkk are reliable substantial 3rd party sources?  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * --evrik (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * --evrik (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * --evrik (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * --evrik (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more comments on the sources mentioned (or finding of others). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Look at this piece at the one minute mark: --evrik (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is premature. A GNG tag and talk page discussion would've been better first steps. Regardless, this individual is an influential figure in political consulting and journalism who passes WP:GNG. In-depth sources about his recent appointment – to a significant position, mind you – further contribute to his notability.  KidAd  •  SPEAK  06:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: there are some challenged with the policy-backing of the !votes, or lack thereof. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  22:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep evidently of interest to our readers and article appears to be adequately sourced. NemesisAT (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Examining the two news sources, I see them as mere notices reprinting his CV. Looking at hte onee in the book, it's a blurb about hte individual to accompany a book chapterhe contributed. That's normally self-written, and doesn;'t show notability !!!!
 * 'Comment 2' of interest to our readers I've seen this given as a reason for keeping  in a number of recent afds. I am actually quite sympathetic to using this as a criterion- I could write an substantial justification for it. However, it is completely in opposition to the entire principle of notability as we have used it for 20 years now--but I've often expressed my dissatisfaction with  the way that it is often interpreted and it seems to be based upon a world where publication was much harder to achieve, perhaps 30 or so years ago. .  I would be interested in seeing a discussion proposing it as an alternative guideline. There will be some problems:  It does provide a very easy opening for PR people, but the GNG provides an even easier one. It does change WP from a permanent record of things of continuing importance, which has been the usual meaning of "encyclopedia", but so  does the GNG in many fields. It does completely destroy the entire policy NOTTABLOID, but the way many AfDs are being decided, we may be doing that already.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has long been far more than an encyclopedia and is much more useful as well. My personal opinion is we shouldn't hold ourselves to what a "traditional" encyclopedia would cover. NemesisAT (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment An article in The Independent helps establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources in NPR and The Hill demonstrate significant coverage satisfying notability guidelines. Such-change47 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly more notable now than he was when this article was nominated for deletion! Nwhyte (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.