Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Henry Jnr


 * 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   delete. No prejudice against recreation some day. Could be redirected as well. Tone 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

David Henry Jnr

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This young man has a notable father and grandfather, but notability is not inherited; his other claim to fame is a kidnap attempt 16 years ago, but per WP:BLP1E I do not think that is enough to get him an article; we should wait until his achievements make him notable in his own right. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom, insufficiently notable. (Talk Contribs) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Brian Henry (New Zealand) or Henry Family of New Zealand Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Goscentral - I have to disagree with this. The notability in this case is not with individuals of the Henry Family, it is with the Henry Family itself. Therefore as the heir to it, he is eminently notable. I agree that a full article is not warranted on this particular member of the family at this stage, hence why I created this as a stub so that further updates can be made as necessary Goscentral (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly why the Henry Family as a whole has its own article. The nominated article should redirect there until such time as David jr becomes notable in his own right. Grutness...wha?  23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not inherited. No prejudice adainst recreation should he become notable in his own right. Edward321 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2009 (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.