Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godfrey Lewis 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. Closing as "keep", as there are no arguments in favor of pure deletion. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Found one source, subject does not have any notability for himself. Fails WP:BIO. Here is the source:  http://hudsonriverzeitgeist.com/home/2016/7/3/a-trip-to-the-forgotten-birthplace-of-american-historys-richest-man Rogermx (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added 12 book sources - and there are more. He clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge into Rockefeller family. Being the "father of the Rockefeller family" does not make him notable. WP:INVALIDBIO says "relationships do not confer notability". Also see ''Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He meets WP:SIGCOV - so he's clearly notable. Numerous book references, covering him in depth (several paragraphs), going back at least a century (from 1905 or so - and possibly earlier references can be found). Quoting from WP:INVALIDBIO - That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A);. In this case significant coverage has been found on A. Why do people find him notable? Perhaps due to giving rise to the Rockefeller line - however that is true of numerous medieval nobles. e.g. Ansegisel,Anna of Brunswick-Grubenhagen-Einbeck, Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox, Bertrand III of Baux, or Louise-Jeanne Tiercelin de La Colleterie. As significant coverage exists of him (much more so than many nobles which have an entry) - he meets the criteria for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not very persuasive. If there is significant coverage, then he is notable.  If there isn't, the fact that pages exist for other equally less-than-notable people only means that more deletions need to be proposed, not that this page needds to be retained - it should stand or fall on its own merits, not the deficits of other pages. So, the question is, do the added sources represent significant coverage, or just passing reference? Agricolae (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding significant coverage, my main argument rests on coverage in Chernow 2007, Flynn 1933, and Nevins 1940. The first chapter of Chernow, called the Flim Flam Man is about William, Godfrey's son, and discusses Godfrey across 6 or so pages, covering most of the material in this article. So while the chapter is a biography of William, Godfrey is a significant character, not just as Williams father, but also as a distinct individual. Chapter 1 of Flynn is titled Michigan Hill and is about Godfrey and William, discussing Godfrey across 5 pages or so pages, again covering most of the material in this article. Nevins 1940 is available o google books only in snippet view, but again covers most of the material in this article across multiple pages. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - passes NPOV, NOR, V, N, etc. At the outset the article was basically genealogical, but it seems to me now to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned things up a bit. I've also removed a number of the references User:Icewhiz added, leaving 6 which I think are pretty strong and one more which is genealogical and which provides birth dates for their children. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that just because an individual's fame is inherited, does not mean his notability cannot be established. This individual is certainly only famous because his grandson was famous. But given that he is himself famous and has received significant coverage in multiple sources, I do think he is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I appreciate efforts to add more information. I would change from Delete to Merge with the Rockefeller Family article as a good solution.  I still do not believe it merits its own article.  Rogermx (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By merits, do you mean that you do not believe that the coverage in reliable sources is significantly in depth? Smmurphy(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm skeptical that there is any material here that should be merged into Rockefeller family. That page currently mentions Godfrey and is already very long and somewhat well organized and adding detail into the life of a family member who did not achieve fame except through his famous progeny would not add to that article. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rockefeller family. I might have said delete, as his only claim to fame is inherited from his grandson.  However, a summary of this article will usefully fill out the very brief "family background" section there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Merge to Rockefeller family as per above. There are issues with the notability of the subject. For notability multiple uses of the same source counts as one and passing mention (not "significantly in depth") does not count. The article states as fact that the subject was born in Albany, New York but the references give multiple possible locations as the birth place is not actually known. "Notability (people)" states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.". And having a son that became famous does not match any of those. That slippery slope would mean all Rockefeller's and Avery's would get an article. All we would need to do is list the same sources 3 or 4 times, a genealogical source (for birthdays) and point out the relationship to the famous person. Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2017 (*UTC)
 * Having just read the "Michigan Hill" chapter in the Flynn book, it describes Godfrey in a few brief sentences as a shiftless, thriftless alcoholic who moved to Tioga NY, made a bad land deal and had children. That is it.  The chapter is really about Bill Rockefeller.  It does not constitute significant coverage of Godfrey.  Rogermx (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The keep !votes relate to GNG. Rogermx, the nominator, disagrees with me that Flynn's coverage of Godfrey is in depth enough to satisfy GNG, which is fine. I think if a published book discusses and individuals character, his career, and his family, as Flynn does, that is quite a bit of depth. The other !votes are concerned that his most important claim to significance is through his progeny, which is valid and reflected in the article, but such a claim to fame may not always lead to notability issues. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia - we should be there when someone looks up someone due to their more famous descendants - particularly when passing GNG. An encyclopedia query of "who the heck was Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller?" is an entirely valid one for someone reading about the numerous Rockefellers. The answer does indeed turn out to be a mostly nobody (He did however name a tract of land that became a state forest - Michigan Hills NY State Forest) - but that nobody passed GNG - as there is copious, well written, and detailed information about him - well beyond what we have on several other figures. We have many nobodies that pass GNG. If they do - they should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not meant to be the source of all information. If it were, we would be adding millions of people who appear in obituaries, census records, birth announcements, etc. etc.  Personally, I don't believe in adding aristocrats to Wikipedia simply because they came from a "noble" family.  Rogermx (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The query "who the heck was Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller?" is best responded to with a redirect to Rockefeller family. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Icewhiz. MB298 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2017 (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.