Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong

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. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong

Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - Contested prod. Article was created on the basis of the invalid criteria listed at WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. Relationships do not confer notability. The subject did nothing that would qualify herself under WP:BIO, and, again, the article was created on the basis that she was the eldest daughter of John D. Rockefeller. Jd027chat 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

some people are so notable that there is in fact interest in their children. She'll be covered substantially in all the books about John D, Sr, and about the family; multiple sections in Nevin's standard John D. Rockefeller : the heroic age of American enterprise As well she should be: He left her 25 million dollars in trust for her, probably making her one of the wealthiest women in the world at the time. [1]DGG (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable as a philanthropist in her own right. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable member of notable family. Fails WP:N, as she is not the primary subject of any sources provided. Most rich kids are occasional philanthropists; so what? Not every member of this family is notable, but somebody seems to have decided to create a stub about every darned one of them. Notability, need I remind anyone, is not hereditable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per DGG and Bearian. It shouldn't be at all hard to find the sourcing in that material. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is agreed that enough significant coverage exists to pass WP:N. SorryGuy  Talk  06:24, 23 February 2008 (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.