Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Newton, Sr. (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Cam Newton. This is the consensus, however there is a suggestion near the end of the AfD that the article may be able to stand alone if about the controversy, rather than being biographical. If that is the case, then if a consensus to restore and rename is reached, so be it. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cecil Newton, Sr.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The previous AfD for this article resulted in no consensus, but looking at this article again nine months later, I still cannot see how it should be able to stay on Wikipedia. The entire body is just a regurgitation of the Eligibility controversy section from Cam Newton. Cam's father is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article per WP:GNG, and I am re-requesting deletion or a merge of content into Cam Newton. Waiting nine months allows us to see that Cecil Newton, Sr. has not received continued coverage since the scandal.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Continuing coverage is not necessary. Notability is permanent. Admittedly a large portion of the article revolves around the scandal. But there are numerous other sources that fill in the article and that enable it to pass WP:GNG. P.S. I am the page's main editor.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Got coverage before this scandel to do with being released from 2 American football teams in the 80's Seasider91 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His NFL career fails WP:NSPORT.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cam Newton - his NFL 'career' fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he never rose higher than the practice squad, and the scandal is a WP:BLP1E event. I suppose you could make the case that the two combine to squeak past the GNG, but I don't believe he's sufficently notable to merit an article outside of the scandal itself. Now, the scandal might merit its own article instead of a section in Cam's, but that's another can o' worms. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Query. For those editors arguing to keep a standalone article for the father, I have several questions for which I would like to hear answers:


 * 1. Why do you not believe that WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E do not apply to Cecil's standalone article?
 * Keep is based on WP:GNG which provides a broad view of his life beyond football.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 2. Why do you think that Cecil is notable because he was a preseason member of one or more NFL teams and was released?  Does this not contravene the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NGRIDIRON?  Can you show any in-depth coverage of Cecil in independent, reliable sources for his abbreviated NFL career?
 * See reply above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 3. Can you show any in-depth coverage of Cecil in independent, reliable sources for his college career per WP:GNG?
 * see above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 4. Once the duplication in coverage is eliminated, can you provide your logic why Cecil's involvement in the eligibility scandal can not be covered more completely, coherently and concisely as part of the Cameron Newton article's section regarding the scandal?
 * This is a biography. It is not an article about the scandal. A separate scandal article is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing your answers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect: to Cam Newton. A first read through the article and I thought it was about the son.  Words like "allegations" and "apparently " along with "via text message by a representative"  and "he was said to have attended".  There looks like a lot of speculation here, where no one is sure what happened and things should be better on a WP:BLP. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON.  --LauraHale (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per LauraHale. The great majority of the article focuses on the scandal involving his son.  The only reference to his own football career is a throw-away sentence that, "Newton, Sr. was released in training camp during both the 1983 season by the Dallas Cowboys, as well as the 1984 season by the Buffalo Bills."  For this to be kept, I think there needs to be more about why "Sr." is notable separate and apart from his involvement in a scandal involving his son. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you remove the section on the scandal, the article remains over 1500 KB of readable prose. I think you are misrepresenting the content of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've misrepresented anything, but if you can find more information and expand the section on his own football career in a way that demonstrates his independent notability, I'm willing to reconsider my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per The Bushranger. None of Sr.'s accomplishments rise to notability other than the scandal. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cam Newton. Has only received significant coverage for his role in this scandal, hasn't done anything independently notable. The rest of his life, including unsuccessful American football career, is non-notable and it is not appropriate to have a BLP based around one negative scandal, with a few non-notable elements to puff it up. Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. In the last 24 hours, I have re-read both articles, and Google-searched Cecil.  I've come to a couple of conclusions.  First, Cecil's own college football, pro football, and ministerial careers are not notable under any of the specific NSPORTS notability guidelines, nor under WP:GNG.  Second, his Wikipedia notability (or perhaps "notoriety" is a better word in his case) is almost entirely derived from his involvement in Cam's NCAA recruiting and eligibility controversy that arose after Cam's transfer to Auburn.  But for that scandal/controversy, Cecil would not be a close call for notability under WP:GNG.  In deed, there was no stand-alone Wikipedia article for Cecil until the scandal arose.  Applying that "but for" text, I say redirect to the Cam Newton article's controversy section per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, and merge what appropriate salvageable content there may be to the "yearly years," "controversy," and "personal" sections of the Cam Newton article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: this is a non-notable person. I could live with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was a consensus at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. after the last AfD that there was enough material to create Cam Newton eligibility controversy or Cam Newton recruiting investigation. This would avoid WP:UNDUE mention of details in Cam Newton's article for something he was never implicated.  A summary in Cam's article would be more ideal, and additional sources on the scandal, identified already at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.. could be used to expand the contents. My recommendation then and now is to just rename Cecil Sr's article.  Cecil Sr. is not notable, but the scandal is.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename Bagumba's got a real good point there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename - indeed he does, so changing my !vote - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article as it currently exists can't simply be renamed. It would have to be reworked to focus it on the scandal, rather than being a bio on the father. Effectively, the only paragraphs that would remain in the renamed article would be the ones under the heading, "Scandal details."  Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes rework is needed, but the scandal portion is a majority of the article. And a summary of his personal background is relevant and can remain as he is a key figure in the scandal.  Its always best to WP:PRESERVE content in IMO, especially when most of it is salvageable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the more complete summary of the eligibility scandal is found in the Cam Newton article: Cam Newton. If an article on the scandal is needed, the content there would be a better starting point. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure so there aren't some details about the scandal here that aren't in the other article also, but someone would need to rummage through the different versions to retrieve any golden nuggets; it's unfortunate summary style wasnt used instead of duplication to begin with. In the event this gets deleted, I've copied additional sources identified from Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. to Talk:Cam_Newton. I'd probably have just done the spinout already if I was more of a Cam Newton fan or he went to my alma mater. I'd still prefer to leave this article here so no information is lost, but at least copied some of the talk page stuff over.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (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.