Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur MacArthur IV


 * 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 to delete. While there is no consensus that the article content should be deleted the the balance of arguments favors covering him in the context of his notable father so I am redirecting the article as an editorial decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur MacArthur IV

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Son and grandson of über-famous American generals but by all accounts this man sought to avoid the limelight and did. Much of the article is based on sources of questionable reliability that rely on hearsay which is unacceptable for a biography of a living person. Pichpich (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki entry on Arthur MacArthur IV is of tremendous historical significance and should be retained. References provided are the only ones available on MacArthur but the references are credible. The entry has been edited down to a bare minimum so it covers only the historical significance of the living entry. Arthur MacArthur is of significance because he is still alive and an established public figure. People want to know that, and Wiki now provides the only known bio information on this noted individual. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoruff (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 July 2012
 * Why is he of tremendous historical significance? How is he an established public figure? If that was the case, there would be plenty of detailed references to build an article. Pichpich (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. A very young Arthur MacArthur IV was on the cover of LIFE in 1942 (Amazon.com listing here), and there is a 1946 UPI story describing him as an 8-year-old "musical prodigy" (and even then mentioning the "screen of secrecy MacArthur maintains around his slightly built son").  Otherwise the only thing I can find is a series of very brief entries in columns of the "where are they now" variety, reciting the usual story that he sought privacy, changed his name, became a musician, lives in New York.  I see no basis for a separate article.  At most, a few words, a sentence at most, might be added to his mother's and father's articles mentioning the basic reliably sourced facts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Douglas MacArthur. It's a convention to redirect articles on family members of notable people that aren't independently notable, as per Bio.--SGCM (talk)  00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Arthur MacArthur IV has significant coverage in bios of his father. In addition, he has numerous instances of press coverage before he started using another name in his musical career. Above was mentioned the Life magazine cover. Here is a link to the article about Arthur on pages 66 and 67 of that August 1942 Life: . The press service story about his from 1946 was mentioned above: . Here is an article when he was 13 with significant coverage: Here is another article when he was 13: . Here is an article when he was 14 with a paragraph about him:. Here is a wire service story from 1964 while he was still Arthur MacArthur, with significant coverage: . He was called a "familiar figure to the public" at age 26 in a wire service story. His life and chosen obscurity gets coverage such as Tampa Bay Times 2010: . This is far more instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources than most Wikipedia biographies. If the bio is deleted for some reason at this time, in disregard of WP:BIO,  it could still be re-created when he dies and the obit appears in various news media, with coverage of his later career under the later (secret) name. His chosen obscurity can still be respected by absolutely not sleuthing his presently used name or other present details, while he lives. Edison (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The bar to notability is quite low on Wikipedia. He has kept a deliberately low profile in New York City, which is notable in its own right, considering the extraordinary notability of his father. 76.17.130.55 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In essence you're arguing that we should put him in the spotlight because it's really interesting that he manages to avoid the spotlight. Ethically, I find that very problematic and the BLP policy does call for a respect of people's privacy. He was paraded around as a child like many celebrity children but we don't have articles on the children of Tom Cruise (despite the fact that they'll routinely appear in tabloids). Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete then Redirect to father. Notability isn't inherited, and this subject hasn't done anything sufficient to earn notability on his own. Applied sources fail IRS. Nothing in presented sources or in a reasonable search which meets GNG or BASIC on the subject's merits. Clearly fails WP:MUSICIAN. I see no sources in the last 35 years which directly detail the adult son independent of his relationship with the general. Virtually everything recent (like the Tampa Bay source linked above) is an unanswered "where is he now?". "Keeping a low profile in NYC" applies to some 8 million individuals. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 30 July 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.