Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Walton (Walmart heir)
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 of the debate was delete. Proto///type 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Luke Walton (Walmart heir)
According to the article, "the son of John T. Walton and the grandson of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart." Does not establish if he is notable for anything besides his family. —tregoweth (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Inheritance of Wal-Mart fortunes does not necessarily equate to inheritance of notability. Google search of "Luke Walton WalMart" returns 60,100 Ghits, all of which seem to be about the death of his father (with Luke's name mentioned in the article), mirrors of the Wiki article, or Luke Walton the NBA player. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does, as all billionaires are notable. Note that he was an only son so next year he may be listed by Forbes as one of the richest people in the world. CalJW 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. CalJW 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the rationale to keep is soley based upon crystal ballism, he is not notable yet. No reason for an article. Yanksox (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable yet.--Nick Y. 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- As he's certain to be a billionaire when he inherits this fortune I'd say Keep. Billionaires are all notable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOT, this has yet to happen. Wikipedia does not record what could happen but what has definitively occured. Yanksox 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well if we want to get technical he is already a billionaire so WP:NOT wouldn't apply here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if being a billonaire makes you notable. According to the list of billionaire's article there are less than 800 of them, I don't think each and every one of them has an article, and that is for a reason. Yanksox 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- True, some of them are less notable then others, however the Walton family is both wealthier then most and much more publically known and visible. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- But that's the family-not him. Yanksox 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- As a direct member of a notable family I'd say that makes him notable. Just as Michael Jackson's son is notable for being his son.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- There is precedent for deleting the children of notable people (e.g. Suri Holmes Cruise). I say Delete in this case, his one sentence can easily be moved to the Walton family article. Eluchil404 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- As a direct member of a notable family I'd say that makes him notable. Just as Michael Jackson's son is notable for being his son.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- But that's the family-not him. Yanksox 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- True, some of them are less notable then others, however the Walton family is both wealthier then most and much more publically known and visible. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if being a billonaire makes you notable. According to the list of billionaire's article there are less than 800 of them, I don't think each and every one of them has an article, and that is for a reason. Yanksox 23:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well if we want to get technical he is already a billionaire so WP:NOT wouldn't apply here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:35, 28 June 2006 (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.
