Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadd Roosevelt

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tadd Roosevelt[edit]

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

Cannot find multiple reliable sources can be found that cover this man in depth, therefore failing WP:N and WP:GNG guidelines. Nothing notable about him is mentioned, either. The only sources that do talk about him only mention him briefly or are simply things like birth/death records. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "further reading" item of a New York Times article, available here, is significantly about him, including interestingly judgmental views about the perils of growing up with wealth. The current article mentions but does not explain scandal that contributed to his taking a low path in life relative to similarly educated Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Quite a story might be told, likely has been written. I think it's useful to have the article covering this person in Wikipedia, who must show up as a minor character in important biographical books about FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, and other Roosevelts and Astors. Having the Wikipedia article allows readers of those biographies to look up what happened to this person. The article could/should be further developed. I think the New York Times article itself is significant coverage. --do ncr am 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However significant of coverage that article might be, WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources that go in depth to be notable enough for an article. Perhaps I underestimated the depth of that New York Times entry, but there isn't much that goes into him extensively. Biographies of Astors and Roosevelts that I've found only mention him briefly if at all. If more could be found on the mentioned scandal, by all means add it. However, I searched extensively and found little to nothing. The article you linked about Sadie being charged with slander only briefly mentions him, so while it does help indicate their relationship status it doesn't establish him as notable. I also reviewed the sources, and they don't support any scandal. We also need to know what he was noted for, whether he was a socialite, businessman, politician, philanthropist, banker, criminal, actor, author, con artist, or anything. His Astor-Roosevelt affiliations alone aren't enough. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you see i've added some other New York Times archive items, though I didn't include all info from them and did not resolve all discrepancies vs. info that was in the article (some of which you've removed, in edit conflicts with me). I think the scandal might have been simply that he got involved with Sadie, then quit Harvard and married her, variously reported as when he was a freshman at Harvard and when he was a senior at Harvard. Compare this article vs. that for his father, James Roosevelt Roosevelt. The father, as Secretary of the Navy, is more obviously notable, but the father article has even less sourcing. There's a link for Roosevelt family papers. I expect that there is plenty of sourcing available about both, with substantial primary sources and with secondary sources in biographical books. The New York Times archive is just what I happen to be able to search fairly easily right now; the other sources would be off-line. I stay with "Keep" vote on this basis, and again think both these articles are useful. --do ncr am 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there exist some commentary, similar to this March 16, 2005 New York Times article about "Roosevelts and the Quirks of Destiny", by Joseph Berger, about different paths taken by grandchildren of FDR & Eleanor, about Tadd vs. FDR & others of their generation, too. --do ncr am 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've definitely had more luck on finding info on Tadd than I have, that's for sure. Sorry for any edit conflicts, though. As reliable as New York Times is, we should probably include other sources in addition if this article is to be kept. Also, the link you just provided is actually not talking about Tadd, but one of FDR and Eleanor's grandsons. As for father Rosey, he is definitely more notable and worthy of keeping, but I haven't got around to finding more sources for him yet. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "Quirks" article is about a later set of Roosevelt descendents, not including Tadd, as I tried to indicate upfront. My comment that there likely would exist some commentary about Tadd vs. FDR & others, in the same vein as the Quirks article, is speculation / an educated guess by me. --do ncr am 02:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is. If you can find it, feel free to add. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Properly sourced. Historically notable person. That the nom isn't able to find sources speaks more to the ability of the nom, and his sense of ownership of Roosevelt- and Kenndy-related articles, than it does to the notability of the subject. BMK (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically notable..... for what, exactly? Also, I have never tried to own articles..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you read the article? It makes it quite clear what his historical notability is. Almost as clear as your ownership behavior. Are you trying to get rid of this article because the subject is a blot on the escutcheon of the Roosevelt family you obviously very much admire? BMK (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the article. No, I am not trying to get rid of "blots". This was nominated for deletion because it did not explain what exactly he was known for other than his family affiliations. For example, what was his profession? What was he noted for in society (other than being an Astor and a Roosevelt)?? There have been additions regarding him being arrested, so perhaps he was known for involvement with crimes/scandals. If this is the case, his controversies need to be expanded. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can take many forms, and does not require extensive information about every aspect of a person's life. Many articles on scientists, for instance, have little or no mention of their personal lives. Some people -- we call them celebrities -- can be notable just for being well-known. Tadd Roosevelt falls into that category, somewhat, because of his family connections, his personal activities and the obvious interest people had in what he was doing, or did, at the time he was alive. We don't have to know everything there is to know about him to consider him to be notable enough for an article, nor do we have to think he was a good person or valuable person or a well-rounded one ("notability" is not a judgment about worth), we just have to know that something about his life fulfills the notability requirements. BMK (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many aspects of people's personal lives remain unknown to the public. As for "being notable for being well-known", was he perhaps a well-known socialite like his grandmother Lina? Was he involved in any high-profile controversies (not too sure how high-profile his relationship with Sadie was) like other relatives he had were?? As previously indicated, family affiliations alone are not enough to meet notability criteria per WP:INHERIT. If he was noted for any activities, those need expansion. Also, WP:BLP1E indicates that being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - properly sourced, and obviously notable in his day. Once notable, always thus so. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But what exactly was he notable for? Socialite?? Con artistry??? High-profile Controversy???? Family affiliations alone aren't enough to make someone notable...... we need to state in the article what he was noted for other than being an Astor and a Roosevelt. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socialite was a job back then! Seriously ... if half the famous for being famous people were eliminated, WP would be a much more boring place. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should've stated my question differently. I simply was asking if he was known as a socialite or con artist or something. I was by no means saying socialites aren't notable, especially given how his grandmother Lina Astor was a prominent socialite, and his first cousins Ava and Jakey Astor were also well-known socialites (with Jakey being the famous "Titanic baby" and getting involved in an estate controversy with his sister-in-law Brooke over Vincent Astor's will). If he was a socialite, this needs to be sourced. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (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.