Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain-Fabien Delon


 * 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 delete. Although participation is low the nature of sources are well established and after two relists we probably are not going to get further contribution. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Alain-Fabien Delon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career, aside of being "the son of". Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — WikiMeWiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Obviously all the sources are going to be in French. Did nom check?  Also, the fact that nom gives "severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources" as a reason for deletion shows some kind of misconceptions about deletion policy.  See WP:ARTN.  Finally, there are tons of sources in French.  Just see e.g.  and  and  and  and on and on and on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Fluent in French, I can read the sources. Mainly articles from French magazines assimilated to tabloids, with topics that end up with little or nothing to do with the subject, mainly focused on his father's celebrity. Also, notability cannot be inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. "Lacking content" because 4 lines hardly make a solid Wikipedia biography demonstrating an actual career of his own. Finally, Wikipedia is not an IMDb page. WikiMeWiki (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — WikiMeWiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * This is wrong. The first one is from Le Point, hardly "assimilated to a tabloid," whatever that means.  If you don't like Le Point take it to WP:RSN.  The second is from Gala, also not a tabloid.  I'll grant you that Closer is a tabloid, but it's not an unreliable source for celebrity material, esp. given the strict libel laws throughout Europe, and especially in Britain, where Closer is based.  Again, if you don't like the source, take it to RSN, not AfD.  You're just flat-out wrong about the content of the sources.  They are about him, and there are hundreds of others about him as well.  192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No lesson needed, I live in France, and YES I did check the sources : Gala, Closer and Public magazines are all classified as gossip papers ("presse people" in French, see ). Gossip magazines are NOT considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). Here's for everyone a translation of the so-called four reliable sources you cited : → Le Point : "Alain-Fabien Delon : things don't go well with his father...", → Gala : "Alain-Fabien Delon was not raised to have caviar for breakfast", → Closer : "Alain-Fabien Delon and how he handles money : "I don't have daddy's credit card", → Public : "Alain-Fabien Delon : "I think my dad is a bit jealous of me". Quality and reliable content about the subject's actually limited career ? Definitely NOT. Again, notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED) and has to show sustainability (see WP:SUSTAINED). Side note, there are two Closer magazines. One is based in the UK and published by German publisher Bauer Media Group, the other (which is the cited source) is owned by French publisher "Mondadori France" (see ) – a completely separate entity. Meanwhile, if you do have hundreds of reliable quality sources covering a sustainable career (not father-son or family gossips as cited), please do include them in the article to complete the mere four lines content, which right now is not sufficient to make this biography eligible per Wikipedia's standards. Next time before asserting someone's "flat-out wrong", be kind enough to use Google Translate to understand a source content (especially when you don't live or talk the country's language and culture). WikiMeWiki (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC) — WikiMeWiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * We don't accept arguments from authority at Wikipedia. The fact, if fact it is, that you're totally 1000% French is not relevant, and it's not evidence of anything.  Furthermore, regardless of the fact that the titles of the articles mention the guy's dad doesn't mean that they're about the guy's dad.  They are full-length articles about the guy.  And you see WP:NOTRELIABLE.  Clearly it means that each source must be evaluated individually.  This process does not take place at AfD but at WP:RS, which is not where we are right now.  As it stands there are multiple sources which discuss this fellow at length.  No one's disputing the reliability of Le Point, and as far as I know the unreliability of e.g. Gala has not been established.  Finally, your challenge to me to add the sources to the article is not well-taken in this context.  The sources in the article don't determine notability, the sources in the world determine notability.  See WP:ARTN.  If the lack of sources actually in the article bothers you, add them yourself, otherwise drop the issue, since it's irrelevant at AfD.  It's not the subject of today's discussion. You're also, evidently, flat-out wrong about notability (and, if it matters, whether or not I "talk the country's ... culture." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Never claimed to be evidence of anything. Pointed out I can read and understand French, including the sources content (not just titles), as well as which papers are nationally considered gossip magazines in that specific country providing the French Wikipedia classification of gossip magazines (not my own interpretation as it doesn't matter here). But French Wikipedia users must be "flat-out wrong" about their own classification with subjects they actually know better. Back to the subject and the only thing that matters here : "is the subject eligible per Wikipedia's eligibility criteria as a MODEL (see WP:NMODEL) or ACTOR (see WP:NACTOR) ?" (initial reason of this AfD). Both guidelines are identical, strict and simple : 1 → Subject has NO "significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", 2 → Subject has NO "large fan base or a significant cult following" (10K followers is hardly a large fan base as social media influencers – with zero Wikipedia eligibility – have more following than the subject will ever have), and finally 3 → Subject DID NOT "make a single unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment". That easy. Even if these facts were to be disregarded and notability wished to be claimed on the sole fact that the subject is "the son of", Wikipedia is 100% clear on the matter : if "person A has a relationship with well-known person B – such as being a spouse or child – is not a reason for a standalone article on person A; relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on person B" (see WP:INVALIDBIO, additional reason of this AfD). As this discussion is likely to go in circles, other users will have to vote and weigh in to determine this article's fate – as a single vote won't make the cut. WikiMeWiki (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:13, 24 March 2018 (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.