Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr.


 * 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. The consensus is that beyond having a famous father, there is no personal notability for this individual. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

James Cagney, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article fails to supply evidence of notability of the subject other than being the son of a famous man, which is not of itself sufficient substance for an article. The subject appeared as an unbilled extra in one of his father's films, which is by itself insufficient reason for a separate article on the subject. The article contains no citations or sourcing. The article appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR, in that it advances a point of view and appears to have been written based primarily on first-hand information or original research. The article is unencyclopedic in style, particularly as relates to WP:NPOV. The first reason given above, however, is primary. Being the non-famous child of a famous person does not in itself provide notability. Any sourced information pertinent to this person could easily be placed in the article about his very notable parent. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC) :Delete As Wikipedia indeed says: "If a topic has received significant coverage...." The citations posted today merely confirm that Cagney Jr. was the son of the famous actor, that he died on a certain date, and that during his life he sold a farm and moved. None of these qualify as significant coverage nor do they convey significance to the subject, but merely reflect the significance of his father. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. At most, a couple of sentences in his father's bio.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - He is primarily known for being the son of James Cagney, however, that alone was enough for him to be noted in the media, including obituaries from major dailies when he died. At the very least, this is a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He is ONLY known for being the son of James Cagney. James Cagney had a daughter.  Where's her article, then?  Where are the articles for John Wayne's non-famous children?  My concern is that there's nothing to make THIS particular celebrity's child stand out from the thousands of other children of celebrities. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * She hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. There are none of the sources that you see in the article on him, for her. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found several articles covering her, none of which mentioned her brother. She christened a ship when she was 8, for example (Newport Daily News, 17 Feb 1950).  But simply being mentioned in an article isn't significant in itself, especially if the person would never have been mentioned had it not been for the significance of the parent. Thanks for reading. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in the article shows notability. It may be interesting though that his notable father had this son, so include him there, briefly. Superp (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or as suggested merge. As mentioned by others there is no real notability for this person on their own. If he weren't the actors son the facts mentioned in the article sound much like the life of any one of millions of people who lived through the 1900's. The article as it stands is also confusing. Did the sister live her whole life with him? I had to read the sentence about their deaths twice to figure out which one died first. On the other hand I can see that "RAN" has put in some work into the article so I would suggest that a shortened version of this might go on JC's page as an illustration of the travails of his family life offscreen. MarnetteD | Talk 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with James Cagney along with some critical pruning of information as I have to concur that most of details in the article are interesting but hardly notable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Weak delete - seems he is primarily notable for dieing? Sorry, I'm afraid notability is not inherited. Articles need a reason for notability, not just a small selection of sources covering events that were only taken note of due to the relationship with a notable person. I wouldn't object to a merge as has been proposed by a couple of editors. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, meeting our notability requirements. It appears that the article's sourcing took place after the article was nominated for deletion and RAN has made significant improvements to the article from a sourcing standpoint. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article has better sourcing now. However, that sourcing does nothing to provide notability.  It merely confirms a relationship with an actual notable person and verifies that the subject lived and died, basically.  Had the subject not been related to a famous person and therefore had to rely on his own activities to determine his notability, this discussion would probably not be taking place, and possibly the sourcing articles would not even exist.  Even with sources, this is a case of inherited notability, which as WP makes clear in WP:NOTINHERITED is not actual notability. I don't mean to come across as having an ax to grind.  I have nothing against the subject at all.  I simply am surprised to see an article on him without some personal notability of his own, and I fear dilution of WP's value if anyone at all can have an article as long as they're related to someone notable.  Considering the arguments I've had with people proposing deletion of articles about actors who have long and verifiable film credits of their own, it's surprising to me that there's any resistance to this particular deletion proposal.  Thanks to all who are participating in the discussion. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to James Cagney, who is also a "Jr." This is one time I don't think an NYT obituary confers notability. It's very short because the guy just didn't do very much. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. I think this is an exception to the rule that if the NYT gives an obit, (an obit, not a paid death notice), it proves notability. We could best keep the rule but justify the exception by  saying the single paragraph is not significant. I am very unhappy about making an exception here for fear or starting down a slippery slope, but it just does not seem common sense to be to have the article.    DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly redirect, but not merge. RAN has incorporated some of the key elements into James Cagney, which I've now trimmed and reorganised. Jr. simply isn't notable. Obits may generally confer notability, but as DGG argues, a short obit is not significant enough to reach the GNG. Additionally, a whole section on a son in the father's article isn't appropriate; it's enough to identify him, who he married and grandchildren produced, and that they were estranged. All of that is useful information which wasn't in the article before. The rest isn't. A redirect is probably less useful, as if a user searchs for James Cagney Jr, they could a) be looking for the actor (who was a Jr himself) and b) reasonably expect there to be info on the son in the father's article, which there now is. Additionally, the software would direct the browser to the father's article, as that exists and is well established. Ged  UK  08:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The offspring of celebrities often achieve a degree of publicity for being the offspring of a celebrity, but unless they actually do something themselves, these mentions do not confer notability. To expand on comments by others regarding the New York Times, I agree.  Let's look at what NYT actually said here. It's a very short obituary that devotes more words to his father.  Note also that the obituary title doesn't even give his name.   It says James Cagney's Son Dies.  (I hope his gravestone doesn't say "James Cagney's Son")  You have to keep reading to see what he was called.  According to his obit, his achievements, in the order given by NYT were 1.  being James Cagney's son. 2. dying 3. being divorced. 4. having 2 kids.  These points don't meet our criteria for notability.  Most people could easily achieve points 2 to 4, especially 2.   There's nothing special there. That leaves only point 1 - he was James Cagney's son.   I'm not about to purchase the full article from the Philadelphia Enquirer but in the opening paragraph that is freely available, the mention of Cagney Jr.'s death seems almost incidental to going into a revelation of Cagney Sr.'s grief.  This does not equate to notability.  The sources are reliable but the coverage is not significant.  Cagney Jr. had a notable father, but Cagney Sr. did not have a notable son (or daughter).  Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rossrs, I couldn't have put it any better myself. ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the key is "significant coverage" which this one doesn't have. Passing mentions because you are someone's son do not equate to "significant coverage". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with all the above comments favouring deletion - the article doesn't support any claim of notability. Really, his only significant claim to 'fame' was being Cagney's son and IMO there's no reason all or part of this material couldn't be incorporated back into the article on his father. It's really not sufficient to stand on its own. Cheers, Dunks (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2010 (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.