Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur MacArthur IV (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   no consensus. Nakon 01:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur MacArthur IV
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP about someone famous only for being the son of his famous father. Was involved in one significant historical event, Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines. Now lives under an assumed name. Earlier AfD resulted in no consensus to delete, but the closing admin turned the article into a redirect in July 2012. This was overturned in November 2013, with the article being restored. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability isn't inherited. Mention of the son in the main MacArthur article should be enough. Intothatdarkness 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please look at the prior AfD discussion, which closed with no consensus but the discussion identified more than enough additional secondary sources to demonstrate notability.  "Notability isn't inherited" is a bit trite as a reason for deletion since that logic would clearly delete Prince George of Cambridge's article.  To paraphrase Shakespeare, some are born notable, some achieve notability and some have notability thrust upon them. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I normally regard a previous AfD as conclusive, and this is the first time I've created a re-nomination. Normally a result of "no consensus" means that the article should be kept, but in this case it was followed by being turned into a redirect. Now, in the case of the like of Prince George of Cambridge (who achieved Wikipedia notoriety by having an article created about him before he was born), there is a specific exemption clause in WP:NOTINHERITED: this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house. This is not the case here, so his article has to stand on his own notability. And it seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, as Arthur MacArthur IV played an important role in only one event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair but your logic can be turned on its head - what makes Arthur MacArthur (aka David Jordan) notable is his parentage.  Arthur MacArthur, Prince Charles and the more recent heirs to the British throne are about the only people who have been the covers of Life Magazine in early childhood.  Arthur MacArthur continues to attract the world's interest, despite his best efforts to hide from it. Also, nothing's changed that justifies a reconsideration of the previous AfD.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, he must be notable on his own terms without family affiliations to meet notability criteria for persons. See WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO Snuggums <b style="color:#454545">(talk</b> <b style="color:#454545">/</b> <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Arthur MacArthur IV is a notable fellow, outside the event in question which is being cited for WP:BLP1E : Obviously, using the word notable to describe Douglas MacArthur, his father, is an understatement. There is no need for a 2nd Non-notability agenda for this article. Group29 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All the important things about this man can be covered in the article on his father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at Douglas MacArthur's article first - it's already WP:TOOLONG, with 324 inline citations and perhaps 100 "further reading" points. Adding to it to discuss his family isn't doing the encyclopedia a favor. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One small but important point: pointed out in the last AfD that MacArthur's "chosen obscurity can still be respected". His assumed name shows up in at least one of the cited sources. If anyone's concerned about respecting privacy pursuant to WP:BLP we might consider adding warnings, perhaps on the talk page, not to disclose the assumed identity.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think privacy is a concern in this case. Since family affiliations alone are not enough to make someone notable per WP:NOTINHERITED, he fails WP:Notability (people) and doesn't warrant a separate article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your basis for saying he fails WP:Notability (people)? That policy requires substantial coverage from multiple independent sources and at least half a dozen of the sources cited have substantial coverage. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My basis is that he has little to no fame on his own. Nothing substantial outside of family connections. As previously stated, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, but that's not what WP:NOTINHERITED says ... The policy says, in a nutshell, that "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." Arthur IV clearly meets the notability criteria of WP:Notability (people) which requires substantial coverage from multiple independent secondary sources. Seven of the cited sources are largely or entirely about him. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He's basically known for one thing: being Douglas MacArthur's son. Not enough by itself for a separate article. See WP:BLPFAMILY. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPFAMILY's substantive sentence says: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." There are twelve newspaper articles cited as sources here that are about Arthur IV and not about his father. The point here is that Arthur IV was, for a brief few years, a celebrity in his own right - until he had the good taste and wisdom to dodge that particular fate.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. All the childhood stuff is pretty trivial, and he's studiously avoided the spotlight ever since. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He appears to meet the GNG with solid references covering many years of his life, not just his birth to a notable person. See Category:Children of national leaders and Category:Socialites by nationality for similar biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Usually I am against these sorts of articles, but it is impossible to ignore coverage in reliable sources that spans 70+ years. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Tarc, immediately above. The media's repeated "check-ins" on him show him to be, roughly, the world's most notable media-shy, once-famous, dynasty-breaker. A mystery. An object of general fascination. KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:24, 22 February 2015 (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.