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. Those advancing delete argue that evidence put forward of notability actually fails on several grounds including lack of significant coverage and notability not being inherited. Those advancing keep suggest that there are sources which can be pointed to now, and further that there is reasonable evidence to suggest sources exist that aren't present in the encyclopedia. In the end when properly weighing the policy and guideline based rationales offered there is simply no consensus here about notability and so it is closed as no consensus. While this is done without prejudice to a future renomination, I would suggest at least a few months elapse to give interested editors time to access sources which might not be readily available online. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Earp[edit]

Newton Earp (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)

Non-notable person, per wp:Notability (people) guideline changes since the last discussion in 2006. Nothing remarkable here. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above, and especially WP:NOTINHERITED. Please note: he was not a participant of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, which would have made him notable. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right, but he was identified as part of the Western culture by The San Francisco Examiner, so I guess in some way he was associated with the legend. Genium. 23:14, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Not seeing any claim of notability, credible or otherwise. Being Wyatt Earp's half brother is not enough per WP:NOTINHERITED. Served in the Army, but does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has his entry in the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, where he is described as pioneer. Genium. 10:02, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Genium. 10:06, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Genium. 10:18, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

• DELETE as nom. I could be OK with a merge/mention in the Nicholas Porter Earp's (his father) article, and the rename of that article to Earp family or similar, as he seems to lack notability also. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The 1962 Brand book of the Denver Posse of The Westerners published in 1963 included Some notes on Newton Earp, by Gary L. Roberts. Was also the subject of a dedicated article in The 1,001 most-asked questions about the American West. Genium. 23:14, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)
• Keep historical figures don't necessarily show up in "google" searches well, but even checking Google Scholar and Google Books above shows a good number of mentions and details of the individual--including a fairly contemporary mention of him in the Wichita Eagle. I think there seems to be an assumption that this person does not meet WP:GNG but in my view does indeed clearly and abundantly pass. Since I found this collection simply by clicking two of the links above, I wonder if WP:BEFORE was completed prior to the nomination of this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly not by anyone involved in writing the article, who failed to find anything that he'd done that was in any way noteworthy. Is it too much to ask that someone's claim to fame is clearly stated? Your source has a tantalising bit about "an account of a late 19th century shooting at Garden City’s railroad depot involving Marshal Newton Earp, half-bother of Wyatt Earp", and on that basis I have stricken my !vote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly you are not saying that everyone ever written about in a newspaper or two is notable. Even if he was a sheriff somewhere, and a soldier, this guy's life was un-extraordinary, and he is really not notable for anything. Sorry. Wonder no more, because even after BEFORE, there is nothing here to show notability. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I posted above, a good amount of research and data is easily found in Google Scholar and Google Books. As for a "claim to fame" that is not a requirement for notability, because "notability" and "famous" are not the same thing. Notability is determined by the coverage and it is not a matter of opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you consider "...a good amount of research and data is easily found in Google Scholar and Google Books..." as even the few references used in the article illustrate the glaring lack of notability:

  • • • • • 1. 7) "Missouri Marriages, 1750-1920" is a Family Search webpage which refers to a primary source verifying he was indeed married;
            2. 6) Newton Earp card is a genealogy page referencing a primary source document verifying he indeed enlisted in the army;
            3. 5) Gatto, Steve. "Marriage to Urilla Sutherland" another genealogy page referencing a primary source document indicating that he was justice of the peace at Wyatt's wedding;
            4. 4) Newton Earp ; picture archival webpage is a self-published, blog-genealogical site (Shinaberry Family tree) with no editorial oversight besides the author; this is the most used reference in the article and does not pass Reliable;
            5. 2) Chrisman, Harry E. (1982). The 1,001 most asked questions about the American West only mentions the town of Newton, Texas; and as such is a non-sequitur;
            6. 1 & #3) Thrapp, Dan L. (1991). Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F mentions Wyatt beating him in an election, hardly what anyone would consider notable.

  Do you perhaps have additional information and sources that just don't verify that he was born, was married, and a soldier but actually shows some notability for this guy? I see nothing that is "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" about him. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Please click on the Google Books link above. Here's the key results from the first of 10 pages:

  1. Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F - Page 447, Dan L. Thrapp - 1991 "He may have hunted buffalo briefly the winter of 1873 near Peace, Kansas. Newton Earp was a Mason. He died near Sacramento, California, where he had removed from Kansas in the 1890s. Ed Bartholomew, Wyatt Earp: The Untold Story, ..."
  2. Wyatt Earp: A Vigilante Life - Page 58, Andrew C. Isenberg - 2013 "In an era when divorce was difficult to obtain, spousal abandonment was a common way out of an unhappy marriage.46 In contrast to Virgil, four years in the army seem to have inspired rather than inhibited Newton Earp's marriage plans."
  3. A Wyatt Earp Anthology: Long May His Story Be Told - Page 739, Roy B. Young, ‎Gary L. Roberts, ‎Casey Tefertiller - 2019 "Even a casual review of “Legendary American” and the endless array of photographs that should credit to others. In Earp Facts, Volume Three, p. 32, Boyer, in describing the flap over the Newton Earp family photograph published in the San ..."
  4. Wyatt Earp's Cowboy Campaign: The Bloody Restoration of Law ... - Page 292, Chuck Hornung - 2016 "Western-Outlaw Lawman History Association Journal, Summer 2001. Cubbison, Douglas R. “Newton Earp: The Forgotten Fighting Earp Brother.” Western-Outlaw Lawman History Association Journal, Fall 2000. _____. “The Service of James ..."
  5. The Denver Westerners Brand Book - Page 43, Westerners. Denver Posse - 1962 - "Newton Earp lived such an obscure life, while his half-brothers attained fame as gunfighting marshals. Until the publication of Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal by Stuart N. Lake in 1931, few people had ever heard of Newton Earp, and indeed Mr."
  6. Suppressed murder of Wyatt Earp - Page 77, Glenn G. Boyer - 1967 "Newton Earp moved from Sterling to Garden City, Kansas, sometime in the late 70's or early 80's, as well as I can remember and reckon the dates. I went to Garden City in the early 80's and was with him there at times in the early 80's. I believe ..."
  7. Wyatt Earp, 1848 to 1880 - Page 44, Ed Ellsworth Bartholomew - 1963 "Perhaps Newton Earp had reason to feel cool toward his young half brother Wyatt, but he was still Newton “the Good,” a patient man. There are those who believe that Wyatt lived with Newton when things went wrong for the young man."

  Like I said, just some of the first of ten pages. This is starting to clutter up the discussion--in the future please click on the links yourself rather than forcing editors to re-post here a duplication of large amounts of content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  All mere mentions, not significant; and, per #5 above, he's notable for how obscure a life he led? Not changing anyone's mind here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  An individual can indeed be notable for attempting to live an obscure life, as the VOLUME of third party independent reliable sources in Google Books would support. We as editors don't decide if someone is notable based on whether or not we think they did something noteworthy, we compile what others have already decided. And a number of others have already decided that--for whatever reason does not matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably Delete -- So what did he do to make him notable? Even if related to Wyatt Earp, notability is not inherited. It is a pity that Genium is providing links to a database not the actual articles. I am not questioning verifiability, but notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever the subject may be, its notability comes from its presence in encyclopedias, for me at least. This is the case here. Genium. 02:11, Nov 30, 2019 (UTC)

  There must me "significant" independent coverage for notability. Mere mentions, even in an encyclopedia, is way below that threshold. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG defines: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That threshold has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Notability (people): For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That measure has also been exceeded. This is indicated by the coverage and that other third parties have found incidents in his life "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in third party works. Whether or not you or I think it is interesting or not does not matter, for that is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or a derivative of that argument. What matters is that others (apparently a good number of historians) thought it was interesting and they recorded it in third party works. Then we in the never-ending process of building an encyclopedia recognize that they thought that and take the multiple works together to create an article. The books, the historical documents, and even the modern-day references of items held to this day in museum all point to the undeniable conclusion that independent third party researchers have concluded that his life and incidents that surround it is worth recording.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only significant non-trivial more-than-passing-mention coverage is self-published web page. Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to what do you refer? Newton Earp died in 1928, he didn't self-publish any web page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:SELFPUBLISH. 'Someone's personal website', such as this page's heavily-used ref #6, is not WP:RS and does not indicate notability, just the personal whims of the compiler. Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources do you believe are self-published?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  . . . such as this page's heavily-used ref #6 (now changed to #7 - part of some Shinaberry Family web history site). That is the most-used source, cited 6 times. (Same with the ". "Marriage to Urilla Sutherland" citation - a personal web page.) The next most used is Roberts, which I can only see snippets of, but begins with "It often happens that deserving people go through life unnoticed," which you apparently take to mean he is deserving, but I take to mean he has been largely unnoticed. I can't tell if it is self-published or not, but given the topic I doubt it underwent serious editorial review. Chrisman again only snippet view for me, but it returns two disconnected hits (neither of which show his actual name), and that is not what I would expect if he was given more than trivial coverage. The pension index card is an unpublished primary record, its use being original research, plus it is an index card and not even the record, so it isn't even well-done original research (indexes aren't sources, they are a way to find sources). The Missouri Marriages ref isn't working, but seems to be a database search result, so again badly-done original research. That leaves the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, which gives him a brief blurb - he was born, he fought in war, he ran for office and lost, he went west, he had a family, maybe he hunted once, he died. It would be the strongest argument in favor of notability, but given the esoteric title and the pedestrian nature of entry, I don't exactly count this as significant coverage. You clearly disagree, so be it - I am done here. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The addition of better sourcing can be achieved through editing. Some of the sources in the article would not stand up to a notability test (although they are good for verifiability), there are many others even online in Google Books that meet or exceed notability standards. The issue of deletion should be about the notability of the individual, not the current state of the article. While I agree that sometimes an article can be so bad that we're better off deleting it (policy violations are an example) that's not the case here. The subject matter is notable as referenced by sources found through searches: and that's the question we are here to address. Editing of article content can be handled on the article talk page. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has entry in Dan L. Thrapp (1 June 1991). Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 446–447. ISBN 0-8032-9418-2. . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are many such articles of individuals made famous by association with their famous families, who of themselves may not done anything particularly noteworthy, but have generated some interest in the media and the public eye. Consider the English royal family, for example, princess Margaret's grandson Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 17:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly, OTHERSTUFF exists on wikipedia. Although I respect the great deal of time and effort you have devoted to the Earp family member articles, I have to disagree when it comes to this guy. I would also draw your attention to wp:Family. As to European royalty, members of royal families hold titles, which bestows upon them more deference regarding notability. What title did Newt hold again? :-) Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide states "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia's own guidelines for notability of military personnel, the page on Newton Earp clearly discusses his birth, personal life, and military career. There is no mention of education although that is most likely because he had little to no formal education as he was a farmer and carpenter. GenQuest notes that Newton Earp's life was rather non-descript and ordinary and we know of him primarily due to his famous siblings; however, given that there is enough information about Newton Earp to meet the minimum guidelines set by Wikipedia in relation to the notability of "military people" then the page should be kept. Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy states: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia's own guidelines for the deletion of a page, the page Newton Earp should not be deleted since there seems to be an ideological divide between the "keep" or "delete" points of view in relation to the page on Newton Earp. Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, your reference is to a (non-binding) essay at Military History, NOT a policy at MoS. Respectfully, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the discussion on the Military History page is non-binding; however the "Deletion Policy" is just that a "policy". Given that this is the second thread that is attempting to remove the page on Newton Earp it should be crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that there is no consensus for removal of the page and thus the page should stay as per policy. What makes this forum great is the freedom of speech everyone has and the right to an opinion. However, at the end of the day, it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree on if Newton Earp is notable or not. Boston1775 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2019 (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.