Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George DiCaprio

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Some participants seemed to have misapplied WP:NOTINHERITED, which is not a content guideline or policy, and clearly states, {{tq|Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG}}. At least two of the Delete views admit that the subject {{tq|has SIGCOV from WP:RS}}, making their !vote ambiguous. The question of whether or not sources would have existed if it weren't for the subject's son is largely academic, and has no bearing on WP:GNG or NBIO. Weighing the remaining views, I see a rough consensus to retain the article. However, seeing as this is a marginal case, I'd split the difference with a no-consensus close by allowing a renomination in three months. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

=[[:George DiCaprio]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=George DiCaprio}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=George DiCaprio}})

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::He stills fails WP:AUTHOR, as none of his work in the bibliography is notable. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yours is an admirably expressive and nuanced opinion. However, our own take matters very little as far as a person's notability is concerned. Sources rule-The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep because there are at least three good sources. However, there are several sources that need to be removed and the article tagged as needing better sources, if it is kept. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • :It isn't about the sources, obviously Leonardo DiCaprio's dad is going to have a plethora of articles about him no matter what he did. The issue is that he has no notability outside of being Leo's father. jolielover♥talk 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Soft Keep I agree with the above needs better sources and some expanding. I say keep for now and maybe re-nominate in the future if its not expanded on much better sources found. ContentEditman (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • :The article's had 15 years to work on jolielover♥talk 10:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, you need to have notability on your own, not from your son. Fails on the not inheritied grounds. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • KEEP: His work in underground comix is notable, not his relationship to his son. I added some more verified sources on that part of his life, from the likes of The Comics Journal and published books on the movement -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - while the subject's notability is questionable, he has SIGCOV from WP:RS. Herinalian (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  • :Isn't that because of his son? Lililolol (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Delete: I agree that he isn't notably significant on his own, and while his son gives him some notability, it's not enough. I believe he fails to meet most of the criteria outlined in WP:BIO Lililolol (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.