Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Marcellus Clay 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". There are plenty of sources which provide biographical details about the subject and so he passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Mohammad Ali's father he received a tremendous amount of coverage in reliable sources and is, in fact, notable. pburka (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT states "Also, notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". It should be noted this is one of a pair of articles nominated, along with Clay's wife Odessa Grady Clay.Jacona (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Direct coverage in Sports Illustrated and The New York Times. Yes, he is known for being Ali's father, but there are lots of fathers of celebrated people who do not get coverage on their own. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cited and referenced - perfectly valid article Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2020 (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.