Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto de la Rocha

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 for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto de la Rocha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to fame was being the father of pretty much the best vocalist in a band ever. Other than that, the article looks like a stub. If this article can be expanded much further upon, I might consider withdrawing. Rainbow Dash 03:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a notable Chicano artist starting in the 1970s and his work with Los Four was discussed in the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers over a fifteen year period well before his son's musical career even started. Here's a link to a book, one of many, that discusses him and his work. Here's another. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (see below) I've just tried doing some searches which exclude references to his son and the Los Four group - not a lot, in books, news or anything else. It seems that he's only notable as a member of Los Four or as Zack de la Rocha's dad. Cullen's sources are good ones, but they both discuss his work only in reference to the Los Four Chicano art movement, not in its own right. I've gone through a number of other books as well; the only one specifically about de la Rocha is a good old Betascript wikimirror. Thus, I recommend merging the article to Los Four. Yunshui (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment without having looked into this deeply, my feeling is that this is commonplace for artists who are also in movements. for instance, sources about picasso will tend to mention cubism, but it was picasso that made cubism notable, rather than the reverse. ~~I would !vote keep, but I have nothing to add to what Cullen328 and SunRiddled have said.~~ Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a very influential muralists. I do think it needs to be improved. But I don't agree with deleting it for the reason the nominator mentioned. His son is not his only claim to fame.SunRiddled (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I did a little research and decided that I had enough to add to the discussion to be able to !vote. de la rocha is discussed or mentioned, albeit usually in connection with los four, but see my comment above, in 7 of the smithsonian's oral histories of artists, which seems to me to be enough to establish notability as having been a memorable and (at least for some participants) influential member of the chicano art scene in los angeles in the 1970s: [smithsonian oral histories of artists search on RdlR] Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added a little bit of info to the article which distinguishes between de la Rocha and the rest of Los Four. What do you all think? I know it's not much, but I mostly wanted to show that it could be done. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep on basis of Alf's additions, which effectively counter my earlier contention that de la Roche was only notable as part of Los Four. With these additional sources taken into account, he definitely merits his own article. Yunshui (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2011 (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.