Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.


 * 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. I have returned to this discussion a couple of times over the past day, and found this a particularly difficult AFD to close. There is certainly strong arguments both for and against keeping this article. Many of the against arguments hinge on WP:NOTINHERITED, and the for arguments on the sheer wealth of biographical source material. There is less question of whether Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. is notable for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia; Clearly, whether this article exists or not, the substantial article on Muhammad Ali should include information on him. There is a case for a merge, and I am happy to leave that to the admittedly torn editors on his talk page for the moment, rather than stipulating that myself. I cannot, quite, find an actionable consensus and as this has already been relisted twice, I do not feel we will find it. I hope my summarising comments sufficiently explain my decision to close in this way. KaisaL (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Been the father of a famous person doesn't not make a person pass WP:GNG. An AFD 7 years ago was closed as merge but no one ever did so. It was suggested on the talk page to start a new AFD so here it is. Clay has no notability for himself. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED Seasider91 (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there such as this. It is interesting to learn from this that Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a few paragraphs in relation to his son in a book about his son. It seems prominent enough material to go into Muhammad Ali, but it's not the significant independent coverage of a subject that we would expect for this article. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - anything out there seems to be only due to his paternity.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Delete votes completely misinterpret WP:NOTINHERITED. The policy states that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (emphasis mine) and this is where most people hit the floor. However, if you read beyond the headline, it delivers a knockout: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". The article already includes more than enough coverage to justify WP:GNG - it should not even be a contest. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure but none of the references (except for the short obit) is about senior. The others are essentially passing mentions.  I don't think GNG is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, I can accept that we might have different interpretation of what constitutes "passing mention" within the context of WP:GNG, rather than automatically ruling out anything that also covers his son. However, I would argue that the source User:Andrew Davidson provided is much more than a passing mention. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Just a note that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a guideline or policy. It's part of an essay. North America1000 14:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. I'm OK with Merging or redirecting this article.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Muhammad Ali is/was an extremely notable person and just being the covered father of an extremely notable person should warrant a keep. However, STRONGLY support merge instead of delete if delete is the consensus. MB298 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What notability criteria says that "just being the ... father of ... notable person" "warrants a keep"? Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect I don't see the accomplishments or significant independent coverage to show notability. Remove everything related to his son and I don't think anyone would argue that he's notable on his own.  I have no objections to the article being merged or redirected to Ali's, but I don't see the evidence that shows he should have his own article. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum, or Keep without prejudice to a merge discussion at the talk page AfD is not for content disputes.  AfDs closed as merge or redirect do not bind the content experts at the talk page of the article.  There is not a hint of a case for a notability deletion, given the absolutely essential nature of this topic at the article for Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr..  A "wrong forum" result does not close this discussion, but moves it to the talk page of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. This is not a content dispute, it's about whether Ali's father is WP notable or not.  That makes this the correct place to discuss this topic.  Whether or not it's "essential" to the Ali article is both unproven and irrelevant to the determination of Clay Sr.'s notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The concept of wp:notability only applies to the topic of the article, not the content of the article. Deletions apply to both the topic and the content.  Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia, so the article content falls as a side effect.  The normal type of notability discussion that decides whether a topic's content should be stand alone or merged to a parent article is, as per our policy, handled on the talk page.  See WP:Deletion policy and WP:Insignificance. As for your assertion that:
 * Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.
 * has not been proven to be essentially related to
 * Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.
 * I offer that the proof occurs by inspection.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did you see the criteria that articles can only be deleted if "the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia"? Also, it might behoove you to read what I actually wrote.  I didn't say that Clay, Sr. and Clay, Jr. were not related, I said that Ali's notability is irrelevant to Clay, Sr.'s notability.  Each article's topic must show it is notable in its own right, otherwise it should be deleted, merged, or redirected. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have proven as you requested that deleting this topic from the encyclopedia would do irreparable damage to the encyclopedia. As for your request for more information about Wikipedia's concept of wp:notability, I've provided cites above.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at those links you mentioned and dont see where the topic can be deleted only if it's "not not used anyplace in the encyclopedia". Also, you have not proven anything--except perhaps to yourself. You certainly have not shown Wikipedia would suffer "irreparable damage" if this article was deleted. He's already mentioned in Ali's article, but I've seen nothing to show he deserves his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your last phrase, "deserves his own article", tells me you are confounding the normal standalone vs. merge/redirect notability; with the special case of WP:DEL8, deletion notability. Are you are willing to argue that the term "Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr." can be deleted from the parent article?  I assume not, so WP:DEL8 is out of scope.  Notes 3 and 4 at WP:Insignificance both cite policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that this is a content placement dispute rather than a notability question seems a little misdirecting. The claim "Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia" (which I've never heard of in my 12 years here) doesn't seem to hold up when parents of notable people are mentioned in their articles throughout the Wikipedia without the parents being notable enough to merit their own articles. The only question here is whether Sr. as a topic is notable or not. Of course, any reliably sourced Sr. topic content contributing to Jr.'s biography could go into Jr.'s article.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this may be breaking news then: WP:N was changed in early 2008 so that it is no longer partly a content guideline. Your rationale to delete before redirecting has as its purpose to prevent certain content edits to improve the encyclopedia, which is against policy.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you would go into more detail with many of your declarations, as I have to say I can't make sense of them. 'Delete' because a topic isn't notable is normal here in the Wikipedia, and redirecting a non-notable parent to a child is also normal. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've provided detail at WP:Insignificance. The redirecting of a non-notable parent to a child is a function of WP:Editing policy, so is a content decision.  WP:DEL8 is deletion policy, not WP:N.  AFD, or Articles for Deletion, is for community decisions that require admin tools, which a non-deletion redirect is not, although non-deletion redirect !votes have been accepted at AfD since 2009.  But AfD's closed as a content decision (no admin tools used) are not binding, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not coerce an administrator into ongoing supervision of a content dispute.  A non-delete redirect discussion can be handled on the talk page of the article, and WP:Deletion policy specifically mentions WP:RFC as a possibility for content discussions such as this one.  The current AfD IMO should have been promptly closed by an administrator for, among other things, the claim that there was a WP:N issue without there also being a claim that the issues rise to a WP:DEL8/WP:DP issue.  WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add..."  WP:N states, "...deletion should be a last resort."  WP:Deletion policy says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  WP:DP further says, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  .  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously, if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability. This is about existence of the article (i.e., should it even exist before it is redirected or merged). This is the correct venue to discuss existence of the article. That aspect can be enforced. If that is not resolved here, then it can switch to an action of bold redirecting/merging or an editor agreement (RfC if necessary) to decide that.  Complicated wikilawyering seems to only distort these normal processes going on here.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've cited no policies to rebut my quotes from policy. My statements stand.  If you think that what I've stated above can be improved, then I invite you to write your own deletion-policy essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at your first sentence, it says, "... if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability."
 * (1) There is no Wikipedia requirement that articles demonstrate notability. This appears to be a pre-2008 argument.
 * (2) There is a "way to improve the article" by redirecting it.
 * No one has been willing to argue that the topic can be removed from Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., yet procedurally, you want to use the time of AfD volunteers to discuss this article at AfD for reasons that you haven't explained. From the viewpoint of AfD, this is a minor decision which does not require the time of administrators, does not require general concern about which choices are made, is not urgent, and doesn't require that the decision sticks.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding references to "the article" in your response, WP:N is not about the article...again, as I said above, this changed in early 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not about deletion, rather it is WP:DEL8 that is deletion policy. The fact that there are editors who have !voted "delete" without explaining how their WP:N !votes rise to the level of a WP:DEL8 argument does not overturn WP:Deletion policy.  A policy-based WP:DEL8 delete !vote both provides verifiable evidence that a topic is non-notable and evidence that the topic is insignificant (cannot be redirected).  In addition, there may also be verifiable content to preserve using WP:MAD.  Should a closing admin support our deletion policy?  Again, a Wikipedia policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  Do you support our policies and guidelines?  Sincerely, Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just as it did when I voted to delete in 2009. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali. Due to seemingly only minor coverage (usually fleeting mentions) in various articles/books about Ali, this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, but outright deletion doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Some reliably sourced description of his father as it relates to Ali may merit inclusion in his article, so that may be thought of as a "merge". The NYT description of Sr. as "a handsome, mercurial, noisy, combative failed dreamer, [who] gave [Clay Jr./Ali] the gift of tongue" seems like useful contributing bio info for Ali. Deleting before redirecting would make it less convenient to revert back to a full article. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are multiple sources discussing the subject, plus WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Emmanuel178 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All I've seen are fleeting references or a few paragraphs at most discussing this subject in relation to his son. These sources are discussing this subject only because they are writing about his son. Are you seeing any sources covering this subject independently or otherwise in depth? Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Can somebody point me to some significant coverage of Clay Sr. that is independent of his son? Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali, as there's still nothing convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Damn Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there. Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy.  He is a noted subject in many movies as well.  173.52.99.208 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You make claims, but present no supporting evidence. For example, what movies is he the subject of? People have been claiming to be the greatest for thousands of years, Clay was hardly the first.  In fact, some have even been recognized by others as such.  That's why the Russian czar was not "Peter the Pretty Good" and the Greek conqueror was not "Alexander the Above Average". Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Father is only known for his famous son. Any sources avaliable on him are in relation to Muhammad Ali. Unless there are some significant stand-alone accomplishments that somehow multiple respectable editors missed, this is a clear-cut case of a non-notable subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2016 (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.