Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent 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 keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC; almost no coverage in any reliable sources, except websites advocating his innocence. Fails WP:ANYBIO; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:PERP. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact that Vincent Simmons was one of six prisoners focused on in a documentary that is notable in its own right does suggest notability. I would have suggested that it be merged with the documentary page, except that as the subject of a documentary, readers may wish to find additional information about the prisoner not included in the documentary, or details of events that happened after the documentary was finished. I will say that the page, as currently written, has TERRIBLE prose and is written with potential POV problems, but these are not causes for deletion. Cleanup is a better place for this. Fieari (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Farm: Angola, USA. The documentary aired in 1999 and generated both coverage as a documentary and substantive revisiting of crime by newspapers in Louisiana. There was a second round of revisiting of the crime by newspapers on the 10-year anniversary of the documentary in 2009. These were in-depth articles in multiple Louisiana newspapers, all easily available in news archive searches (I used Proquest.) This topic could probably support an article, but it probably makes sense to condense and fold it into the The Farm: Angola, USA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has been the focus of a tv-docu and has received plenty of media coverage. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add some links to this plentiful media coverage? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG seems adequate, if not terribly good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as he could have had his own article, but it seems best tied to the film itself, so redirect there as best connected. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly. Terrible article, but a quick Google News search suggests this person is in fact independently notable. (Nominator, "has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is a bit off the mark.) Someone please improve the article. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is one of the two criteria of WP:ANYBIO, and Simmons hasn't. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Drmies (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was why I added two more criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2016 (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.