Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Roosevelt IV

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. There is clear consensus that this article's attribution history should be kept and a lesser, but still present, consensus that this topic should probably be an independent article rather than merged into a related topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt IV

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

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

Not independently notable. Notability is not inherited. Being a member of notable organizations does not necessarily make an individual notable. [1] and [2] are the only reliable source coverage and they are both essentially trivial.--Michael White^T·C 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC) --Michael White^T·C 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the given citations aren't adequate to establish notability. Neither is being a Roosevelt family member. Aside from minor mentions given above, the other sourced used either are questionable or don't focus on him specifically. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roosevelt family, as with his son. A subject need not be independently notable to be noteworthy for mention in a supertopic. BD2412 T 21:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his father's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People need to search better rather than making the automatic assumption that this is Not Notable - Inherited. For example THIS from the Racine Journal Times of Jan. 9, 1970 is an Associated Press biography of the 26-year old TR4 — substantial, independently published coverage dealing extensively with the subject. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's a managing director of Lehman Brothers, which, love them or hate them or hate them a lot, is probably sufficient rationale for maintenance of a WP bio to start with. Beyond that, however, he is regarded as an expert national opinion writer on natural preservation, per THIS piece as seen in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of May 27, 1997. Carrite (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a wildlife conservation activist, his participation on various projects has merited FRONT PAGE COVERAGE more than once, such as this Dec. 14, 1999 piece published in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was also a featured keynote speaker, covered in the press, at THIS 2006 ceremony commemorating the Devils Tower National Monument. Pretty clearly a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#1 reads more like a human interest story than significant coverage. Re managing director of Lehman Brothers, I disagree based on my quick research into the likely role of a managing director at Lehman Brothers. #2 is a piece by him, not significant coverage. From the first page of #3, it looks like the coverage is more about the event than him. In #4, there is only one sentence that refers to him.--Michael White^T·C 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of depth, I should also say that interviews like the first link Carrite provided don't count as independent coverage when they're based on the subject's own descriptions and can sometimes just be self-promotion. Their own writings also don't count when not independent of the subject, meaning the second link doesn't establish notability either. What we would need to merit an article are multiple pieces from publications not closely affiliated with Roosevelt that goes into depth on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK Carrit; you won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources provided in the last but one !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on Mr. White's well-reasoned analysis of the sources above which shows we do not have sourcing that actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all his engagements of various kind he seems quite notable. I think the users of Wikipedia would rightfully wonder "why isn't there an article about this person" if it were to be deleted. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would ask "why isn't there an article about this person". Yet it appears we are strongly divided and unlikely to get consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Carrite Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2020 (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.