Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel J. Seymour


 * 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Samuel J. Seymour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD declined, so let's have a discussion. Subject fails WP:BIO1E. He was "involved" in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but only insomuch as he was present at Ford's Theater and, as he was five years old at the time, was the last surviving person in attendance. His role in the event is trivial (it's not like he's the physician treating the president) and is too insignificant for the encyclopedia. BIO1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"; his role was basically nonexistent other than... existing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * delete Only real notability is actually his appearance on "I've Got a Secret"; otherwise, nobody would remember him at all. Could possibly be redirected to the appropriate section of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator should have read farther in WP:BIO1E: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. His experience is described (briefly) in We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts and a Smithsonian.com piece, and there's just enough known about him to fill out a small article, which could easily be expanded with further detail of what he saw (as related in his own account ). EEng 18:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I read where it says "may". I take this as too minor and not enough coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline doesn't care how significant or insignificant his role was -- it cares about the coverage, and there's certainly that. There's too much to say about him to integrate into the main Lincoln assassination article, so that leaves two choices: either a separate article or maybe some kind of Witness accounts of Lincoln assassination article, which doesn't exist. EEng 22:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The subject has been covered in independent sources over the years for his recollections. Meets notability criteria and passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm having trouble seeing his notability since this seems like a case of WP:BIO1E. He had no role in the actual event and I'm not sure merely being at an event is ever indicative of notability.  According to the Sentinel article he didn't see the actual shooting and had so little understanding of what had happened that he wanted to "help the poor man who fell down" (aka, John Wilkes Booth). Appearing on a game show is insufficient to show notability and I don't believe that the coverage meets WP:GNG.  Perhaps a redirect might be appropriate, but I'm not sure to where. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't read the discussion so far. I'll quote:
 * WP:BIO1E: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
 * The notability guideline doesn't care how significant or insignificant his role was -- it cares about the coverage
 * EEng</b> 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read the discussion and I would question the claim that he was a "participant" at all. Perhaps your definition of that word is different from mine (or the dictionary's which says "a person who takes part in something").  Surely you aren't claiming he took part in Lincoln's assassination.  No matter how many times he tells his story, or to whom, he doesn't get more notable than he was at the first telling.  It's not like any new information is being uncovered or remembered.  I didn't vote, but I remain unconvinced that he's a notable individual. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you haven't read Howard Brennan either, 'cause nobody's claiming he took part in Kennedy's assassination either.
 * No matter how many times he tells his story, or to whom, he doesn't get more notable than he was at the first telling – Sure, but the more times it's reported, the more notable he gets. Coverage is what counts for notability.
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Howard Brennan was an eye witness who testified before the Warren Commission. Seymour was five years old. Comparing Brennan to Seymour is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. As the text you quoted says, it's not about specific role but about coverage. Brennan has coverage. Seymour barely has any. 01:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that Seymour didn't "take part" in Lincoln's assassination, as if that was somehow an argument against his notability, which it's not. To illustrate that, I simply pointed out that Brennan didn't "take part" in Kennedy's assassination either. That's nothing like an OTHERSTUFF argument. Anyway, I'm glad you now see that coverage is all that matters. Seymour has it -- not a lot, but certainly enough. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - written about in The Daily Telegraph & Tablet (magazine) & HuffPost Joaomufc (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - hs was what now would be called a reality show contestant. He's a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And if there's thing we love here at Wikipedia, it's footnotes. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - should he be notable? Maybe not (but this is better than yet another YouTube personality or model) - and this is not a vital article by any stretch. However - coverage of this individual (due to being the last surviving witness - and even speaking about this in the early TV age) - clearly pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Has multiple reliable sources writing about him in the past. Besides, the person is dead now. had he been still living it could fall under BLP promotion but it is not the case anymore as it is not a biography of Living Person. This article enriches the encyclopedia without jeopardizing its integrity. So yeah, keep. Dial911 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thazinkoko (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- &#8237;  10 Eleventeen 08:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.