Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meile Rockefeller

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. JohnCD (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meile Rockefeller[edit]

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

This was an unsourced BLP and I've added a source to deal with that problem, but I don't think Ms. Rockefeller meets the criteria of the general notability guideline. She's mentioned in a couple of 1980s stories about real estate, and her biggest press splash came when she was arrested for protesting the Rockefeller Drug Laws. It's one incident and I don't think that's sufficient to warrant an article, and obviously her notability is not inherited from her more famous relatives. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I think she's notable enough, but if not how about merging into the Rockefeller drug laws article? Her protesting arrest is the main source of her notability, so please at least merge if not keep. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge was actually my first thought, but that article is pretty short (lots of organizations have organized against the Rockefeller laws and we should really have a whole section on opposing/protesting them) so it may not work. Still I'm definitely open to that possibility, particularly if we can expand the target article, but I'm fairly convinced she should not have her own article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, retrieve whatever content is relevant to past it elsewhere (where it is relevant). -RobertMel (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @952 · 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be enough ghits about her campain contributions, real estate, and arrest to be notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If her real estate work is sufficient to get a short NYT article, and a discussion in another, and her activism enough to get a long one, then she is notable. There are also of course articles in other NY newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources appear to make the bar. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The subject passes the letter of the notability guidelines, but I can't help thinking that an article on any subject with equivalent coverage in, say, Tehran or Tianjin would not be treated so favourably. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't expect my point to be confirmed quite so quickly, but reading down a few articles in the daily AfD log I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Lisa Brookshire, a discussion about a subject who seems to have roughly equivalent notability to Meile Rockefeller but hasn't attracted the same kind of support. This isn't an "other stuff exists" argument, but a plea for consistency between Western subjects and those from the developing world. I would invite those commenting here to consider why this article is heading for a "keep", but that one is heading for a "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much good faith in that paragraph of yours. maybe specific and non-trivial mentions in the NY Times made the difference compared to a puff piece on an ideal date. You may be hung up on birth locations but please don't project that opinion onto others. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (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.