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 no consensus. Whether this should be renamed can take place on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Newton, Sr.[edit]

Cecil Newton, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notable only for involvement in son's high profile recruiting controversy, most of content is about Cam. WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E applies here, and Newton also fails WP:ATH as he never played a game in the NFL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree completely with Eagles that this is a BLP1E BIO1E issue—and the most concerning thing is that the one event is very negative. Jenks24 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly fails WP:ATH, but WP:BLP1E is not relevant when the one event lasts for several months and causes him to be in the media for all of that time. He was broadly covered in the media from October/November 2010 until January 2011 and continued to be mentioned until the April 2011 NFL draft. There are several articles in the press that focus on him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- BLP1E is for the subjects of articles who otherwise attempt to maintain private lives after having been caught up in an incident. Mr. Newton does not, in my opinion at least, meet this criteria, in fact choosing to remain in the public spotlight. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT While there are a lot of eyes on this page, should Cecil Newton (disambiguation) be moved to Cecil Newton, with Cecil Newton moved to Cecil Newton, Jr.?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue by TonyTheTiger. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:BIO1E. If he was never apart of the Cam Newton scandal, would he be notable? No, so because of this, BIO1E applies here in my mind.--Giants27(T|C) 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do we take into account that people are looking for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not. You created the page yesterday and the page view count skyrocketed because of it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not true, it now seems that about 400 people a day are looking for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Page views ≠ Notability. Besides, I think most of the views are coming from the article being linked at Cam Newton, which gets thousands of views each day. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Meets GNG. I agree with Giants27 that Newton Sr. would certainly not be famous if he were not part of this scandal. I diverge from him, however, in my reading of the application of BIO1E. As I see it, the guideline suggests that an article can be kept in circumstances such as this, even if the person is famous only for his role in this scandal (which I agree w/Giants27 is the case). As to BIO1E, the guideline tells us, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event ... [i]n considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered.... as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that Cecil Sr is WP:BLP1E. Most of the article deals with Cecil Sr.'s actions as they affect Cam, just look at how many times Cam's name is mentioned. However, I think this article should remain as a spinoff of the recruiting controversy, and the content in Cam Newton should be summarized and referred to this article for details. This article should not be a BLP about Cam Sr and should be renamed with personal details about Cam Sr that are not notable to the controversy removed, but that can be dealt with outside of this AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Cam Newton recruiting scandal or anything other than Cam Newton, Sr, otherwise delete. I am changing my previous "keep" !vote, as WP:AFD allows renaming to be an outcome, and I do not want this article kept if the article is not renamed. From my comments at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.: "The information not related to the scandal might be substantive, but it is not substantial. The fact that he is an ex-football player and father of Cam and Cecil Jr can go into Cam Newton and Cecil Newton, Jr.. It doesnt make sense to have all this duplicate information here on the scandal that is also in Cam Newton, and it wouldn't make sense for Cam's article to include a summary of the scandal that points to his father's article—it should be a summary of an article solely about the scandal. Notability is not inherited, so his being a father is not all that notable. Also, his playing career in not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. If one event is the only thing notable about a person, adding non-notable accomplishments is masking his lack of notability. Knowing his background doesnt really help us understand the scandal more."—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looking closer at the Cecil Newton, Sr. article and the Cam Newton article, it doesn't appear that the Cecil Newton, Sr. article expands upon the controversy any further than what is already at the Cam Newton article and could meet CSD A10. It appears that the entire Cecil Newton, Sr.#Scandal details section is copied word-for-word from Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy, which is actually considered a copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia without attribution (could also meet CSD G12). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (Struck out after issue has been resolved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Look more closely. I augmented what was at Cam Newton significantly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I may need to note that large portions of the text are duplicated from another article, but I don't see an example of how to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((copied)) is a template I should have known about a long time ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is about the notable scandal, so just rename it with the word "Scandal" in it. Dream Focus 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a related discussion at Talk:Cecil_Newton, Sr.#Change article to deal with the scandal instead of BLP about Cecil Sr..—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Although he is not notable for his biographical content, the article has substantive content that would have to be purged from wikipedia if the title is changed. I am not sure that is good for WP. I think there should be a redirect from a scandal title to this article so that the biographical content can be WP:PRESERVED.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I think this Delete/Keep decisions should be separate from a rename/move decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed . Please see my response and place all further discussion on content (if the article is kept) at Talk:Cecil_Newton, Sr.#Change article to deal with the scandal instead of BLP about Cecil Sr. —Bagumba (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AFD allows for an outcome of rename, it should be discussed here in the AfD. I changed my previous "keep" !vote to "rename" above.—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a rename requires that over 25% of the content be removed then that is suppose to require a separate discussion at a place like WP:RM. A complicated rename that requires significant content change should not be handled here. AFDs are regarding content as is. Note that when you click on the "renamed/moved" link in the opening paragraph of WP:AFD it talks about pages ready to "go live", not pages in need of significant editing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article duplicates content about one event in Cam Newton, the rest serves to mask his father's lack of notability. I would agree that an AfD is not the forum for a general rename, but the original nomination was to delete the article because of his father's lack of notability. The rename is an alternative to deletion suggested by me (and seemingly by Dream Focus also) to have a spinoff from Cam Newton, where some relevant facts and details not suitable for Cam Newton's article could be added. This would be done summary style to avoid duplicated text.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With half the !voters here being of a "keep" view, it is likely unless matters change that this will be kept either as a keep or no-consensus, but I expect that you could continue to seek consensus for a re-name (which as you say can be a separate issue) at the article talk page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can continue on the article talk page depending on the outcome, but it seems a bit rigid to move this to WP:RM or to the article talk page when there is still an ongoing discussion. Hopefully previous !voters or new participants can give input on the proposal to rename and summarize the Cam Newton article section on the scandal.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I agree completely as to timing. It would appear POINTy if it took place at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2011 (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.