Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Morrone

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No arguments fro deletion beyond the nominator, and clear consensus to keep. Michig (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Morrone[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Camila Morrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To be conservative you could say it’s “Too Soon” but Jesus Fitzgerald Christ if I see another “Leonardo DiCaprio’s girlfriend” story I might chuck my phone at the wall. She has no career to speak of. No sources go in-depth on her (prime examples: People wasting an article to talk about her jeans then plugging DiCaprio’s movie), I mean see for yourself there are a bunch like it; but they can’t wait to mention that her mom was Al Pacino’s partner and that’s how she met DiCaprio. Catalogue work for Urban Outfitters, Topshop, and VS Pink does not make a notable model. Trillfendi (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If appearing in two indie movies that combined didn't even earn the amount of college tuition all of a sudden qualifies an acting "career" then there's a substantial problem with that category. She isn't even known for being an actress, at that. A "career section" made up of 4 sentences divided by 2 subsections? Trillfendi (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) with prominent roles in nationally reviewed films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nadir that people will sink to on this website is so pathetic I’m actually guffawing. Every source in and outside of this article (if you could even call it that) is about being "Leonardo DiCaprio’s model girlfriend" (as if that’s an accomplishment; certainly not even getting the credit for "actress") offering absolutely nothing of notability or substance yet "appearance" in 2 b-movies not even released in theaters "all of a sudden" equate to "notability" for an actress, huh. Notable actresses have more than a "film review" for their career. Notable actresses get profiled and interviewed by reliable sources like the New York Times, Variety, GQ, Rolling Stone, etc. Notable actresses have sources about their career, not love life. For God’s sake since does 2 movies make a career? Since when does 4 sentences with one source make an article? With more burden given to her early life since she has a common law relation to a famous actor than her own "career"? Since when is this acceptable? Yet people wanted to delete Sonya Curry? At least she has real in-depth sources unlike the "actress". Hilarious. The goal posts truly never cease to entertain or amaze. Trillfendi (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resorting to abusive exaggeration means youve lost the argument, stubs on models amd mothers of famous people are so encyclopedic? Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: It doesn’t matter if they’re stubs or B-class, at least they have enough career accomplishments in their respective field to speak of profiled (you know, actual articles that go into detail on the subject themselves) in reliable sources that aren’t trivia tidbits with Instagram photos about being a girlfriend, and they’re not famous for being girlfriends. If she had a career to speak of, more than 4 sentences here, they wouldn’t be even mentioning Leo. They certainly didn’t do that to Toni Garrn. Or, did policies just change overnight? Should I go make an article for Georgina Rodríguez? Aka the only baby mama Ronaldo will publicly acknowledge? Is this turning into the Daily Mail or the Sun? But hey, I’ve only written 100 model articles so what would little ol’ me know about the subject of fashion? It’s not like any of you are jumping to create or contribute to anything. Conveniently, of course. Trillfendi (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is clearly that no notability is there at this time, whatsoever, and that currently she’s only reported for who she is dating (as EVERY article on the subject exhibits) and her "step dad"; notability isn’t inherited. A movie review does not by any stretch of the imagination create notability. And the modeling "career" isn’t even that of a newcomer. I would know I’ve only written 100 modeling articles. But I’m never gonna not point out hypocrisy. If you look at this article of 6 sentences, 2 in early life and 4 in career (divided by 2 of course) with 3/5ths of the sources being about her boyfriend offering while absolutely nothing else besides trivia about her "squad" and family instead of career, one source blurb, and one being a directory for an agency, and you legitimately think that is notability, then you just can’t be reasoned with. Trillfendi (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG with: AFP "Camila Morrone: From doubling up with dad to Hollywood's next big thing", Buenos Aires Times (the English-language Perfil) "Camila Morrone: the Argentine model-turned-actress taking Cannes by storm", and more fluffy coverage like InStyle "These Behind-the-Scenes Photos of Camila Morrone’s Cannes Gown Are as Gorgeous as You’d Expect", W (magazine) "Who Is Camila Morrone? Meet the 20-Year-Old Model and Actress Who Has Been Spotted with Leonardo DiCaprio", Harper's Bazaar Austrialia "Who is Camila Morrone? The 21-year-old model who stole Leonardo DiCaprio's heart". – Levivich 07:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So now a bunch of slideshow images of red carpet appearance and 3 vapid stories about being someone’s girlfriend are now general nobility? Not ... gossip? Extraordinary. Once again, shit like this (which is literally the verbatim story as BATimes, both inadmissable) only talks about her boyfriend and "step dad" with her "movie" as a complete afterthought. Even from the first sentence. You people have officially lost the plot. But if it was "anyone else" all of a sudden it’s "promo", "unreliable", and deleted at once. I have to laugh.Trillfendi (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To properly analyze this, you have to set aside personal preconceived notions or beliefs, such as, "a person isn't notable for being Leo's girlfriend". While that may be true, the fact that a person isn't notable just for being "someone's girlfriend" doesn't mean that "someone's girlfriend" can't be notable nevertheless. For example, you won't find a biography of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis that doesn't extensively discuss her husbands John F. Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, and in fact, she is kind of notable for being their wife. Nevertheless, she is notable, because she meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG by virtue of being the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. So it's just about source analysis, not about who the article subject is dating or married to. Applying source analysis here, this is where I get to:
    1. A full profile in Agence France-Presse such as this can't be discounted for any article subject. AFP I believe is the third-largest wire service behind Associated Press and Reuters. When they write a profile about somebody, it runs widely, internationally – BATimes is one example, but you'll find that story running all over the place, because it's an AFP wire. That's coverage of the article subject in a reliable, independent source–heck, this AFP wire even has a byline (Fiachra Gibbons, AFP). Is it significant? Yes, it's 800-1,000 words, entirely about the subject. It talks about her background (Argentinian), where she was born (Hollywood, though she may not be speaking literally), who her parents are (model Maximo Morrone is her father and Al Pacino is her stepfather), her childhood (lived in a studio apartment sharing a bed with her father until age 15), where she went to high school (Beverly Hills 90210), her modeling career (quit three years ago), her role model (model-turned-actress Charlize Theron), her movie career (the Mickey and the Bear film that just did well at SXSW and Cannes Film Festival). In fact, that she's dating Leo is only mentioned in the lead and one other time. It's less than 10% of the article. The rest is a straight biography of her, with independent reporting and statements in the author's voice. This is one example of WP:SIGCOV that counts for BASIC/GNG, and it's not even really debatable–there is absolutely nothing "inadmissible" about this AFP profile.
    2. W (magazine) [3] and Harper's Bazaar [4] are both major magazines. Mainstream, international coverage in independent reliable sources. Each one has a separate byline, and they both include a mixture of in-own-voice independent reporting and an in-depth interview with the article subject. One was March 2018 and the second was December 2018; both predate the AFP story which is more recent (May 2019). They are rather similar in content, suggesting these were the result of interviews set up by publicists, who probably fed a fact sheet press release to the reporters, and that detracts from them somewhat from a source analysis standpoint. But even if you count these as one, rather than two sources, between these and the AFP story, you have the requirements of WP:BASIC/WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple (more than one) independent reliable secondary sources. So we cross the line right here. (By the way, not that it matters, but these two spend less than 50% on Leo, though it is significantly more Leo than the AFP article.)
    3. InStyle [5] is a little icing on the cake. InStyle is a major mainstream publication, and while they have a lot of pictures of celebrities and what they're wearing, they do not publish an entire slideshow on just anybody that went to Cannes. She has been noted by InStyle, and a relatively significant number of pictures of her were published by InStyle. It's not just anyone that gets a slideshow like this for a public appearance, it's like a "best dressed at the Oscars"-type thing. "Best dressed at Cannes", I guess. It's not, in and of itself, enough to establish notability, but it is evidence of notability. It's properly added to the "pile".
    4. On top of those, add the pure-Leo coverage. Search for her name in Google News, and you'll find story after story after story about her+Leo, in major publications like US Weekly and USA Today. That's also evidence of notability, even if it is notability for being someone's girlfriend. But notability is notability–it comes from the reliable sources, not from what WP editors think is important–and if the reliable sources are taking note of someone because of who they're dating, well, that's stupid, but it's still notable stupidity. That she's Leo's girlfriend doesn't make her notable, but it doesn't detract from her notability either. At least that's how I see it. – Levivich 20:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares how "major" the magazine is IF THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY POINTING OUT NOTABILITY. IT'S USELESS. The Harper's Bazaar "article" is 3 sentences, for God's sake. And one of them is That, and she just so happens to be romantically linked to one of the biggest actors on the planet. Morrone has been dating 44-year-old Oscar winner Leonardo DiCaprio, who is 23 years her senior, since December 2017. The W source is a listicle of Instagram photos (that literally leads with Leonardo DiCaprio has a tendency to date much younger women), yet if it was any other model that can't type of article couldn't even be used (an administrator actually told me that months ago). What do you even plan to do with a source that is just "look at this Cannes dress"? Logically? How in the hell is "pure-Leo" coverage notability? Have I missed something? Did policies change? Being a girlfriend is now notability? A bunch of articles about being a girlfriend despite the fact that one of the policies of Wikipedia is WP:NOTGOSSIP? Are you shitting me kidding? Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Harper's Bazaar "article" is 3 sentences, for God's sake. This is false. I sincerely hope this is just a cognitive or technical error, as misrepresenting reliable sources is a form of disruptive editing. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Harper's Bazaar article is not 3 sentences. It's 600 words. [6] Harpers recounts these facts: born in Buenos Aries, 21 years old, starred in two movies, appeared on the cover of Vogue Latino America, travelled the world, attended the Vanity Fairs Oscars, stepdad is Al Pacino, parents names, that parents were divorced in 2006, recounts receiving acting advice from Pacino, dates Leo, runway debut in 2017 for Moschino, signed to IMG, cover of Vogue Turkey, LOVE magazine advent calendar, appearance in the films Bukowski, Death Wish, Never Goin' Back. The W magazine article is 700 words. [7] W magazine recounts these facts: all the same facts as Harpers (except she was 20 at the time of the earlier interview), plus: now lives in LA, likes feral pigs, friends with Kendall Jenner, cover of Jalouse and in a Sephora campaign, Instagram reach, plus the usual personal life celeb stuff about her friends and parties she's been to. Did you scroll to the bottom of the articles? You don't need to use the source (as in InStyle) in the article in order for the source to be evidence of notability. What you say about "actually pointing out notability" suggests to me a fundamental disagreement about what notability is. I think I just view it differently than you view it. The way I view it is: Notability is something that's evidenced by the sources. It's not something that we, as WP editors, decide, sitting in judgment of people and their accomplishments in life. She's notable because she has been noted, i.e., if a person gets significant coverage in the mainstream media, then that means the person is notable. Whether you or I think she should be notable is entirely besides the point. The media has made that decision for us. (BTW: who cares if they're major magazines? WP:AUD cares. Just like WP:SUSTAINED cares that the significant coverage is from March 2018, December 2018, and May 2019. Hence, these sources "count" for GNG.) – Levivich 20:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first time, the page stopped loading for me at that 3rd sentence so I basically went of that. (But the fact that they deemed that leadworthy is telling. It's like we've gone back 50 years.) it's the same run through of the Instagram listicle with the same trivia of "the girlfriend", "the step-daughter", "2 sentences dedicated to career" set up that doesn't contribute notability at all. That's why I strongly think this page is under the Too Soon category. It looks equivalent to an IMDb trivia page. Wikipedia has standards. Trillfendi (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich; meets the basic "notable because people have taken note" standard. (I find the bit in Harper's Bazaar apropos: But while her love life has undoubtedly boosted her fame, the Buenos Aires-born beauty is impressive all on her own and doesn't need the star power of DiCaprio to succeed in Hollywood.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: What I’m saying is, when you take away the whole Leonardo aspect from the situation giving the attention, what she’s done so far career wise is simply not enough to amount to an article as a model or an actress right now (hence the blatant, apparent lack of citations on it and hence only 2 jobs mentioned in each category. And the smattering of things Levivich pointed out don’t add weight either.). I’m just being honest here.
[Aside: And let’s make one thing clear to all: being signed to IMG Models (or any agency) does not, I repeat, does not make a model notable for it. It’s a logical fallacy that continues to resurface practically everytime a model is AfD’d. Hundreds of completely unknown, un-notable, and or undeveloped models are also signed to them. Same goes for Ford, Women, Next, Elite/The Society, Storm, etc. Just because an agency has other famous models doesn’t make the notability inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A magazine cover, wow. Is someone gonna go looking for it on Amazon.com? Trillfendi (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of Victoria's Secret models is a page that is about half red linked, so... where is the notability there? And no! She didn’t appear in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, expletive she appeared in the Casting Call! Most of the models who do those videos never even make it into the actual magazine! *sigh* The old "appearance = notability" misinterpretation. Trillfendi (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man arguments. I didn’t say everyone on the VS list is notable, nor did I say "Swimsuit Issue", nor did I say appearance = notability. I’m saying she meets WP:GNG based on those sources I posted above. (She also ticks a few WP:SNGs, but this is a GNG keep.) – Levivich 05:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said she’s listed at the Victoria’s Secret list article and I said, that doesn’t really mean anything. If she were an Angel it wouldn’t be a question. But catalogue work? Come on. You brought up the SI Casting Call link, and she’s never been in the magazine. It’s an assortment of Instagram photos from 4 years ago. Nothing materialized. Trillfendi (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camila_Morrone&oldid=902053755"