Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hall Roosevelt

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Taking to AFD after a PROD was contested. I don't see a lot of evidence this guy was noted for much of his own merit (in other words, things that didn't have to do with family connections). Many references that do mention him at all seem more focused on other relatives. Being related to someone famous isn't by itself a sufficient basis for an article. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have what it takes to warrant one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view, when it comes to sourcing the "what" is more important than the "why": if someone has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the question of whether they deserved that coverage is really just academic. In Roosevelt's case, there's really no disputing that he meets the GNG: for instance, we have lengthy coverage in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, etc.; a page-and-a-half-long entry in The Eleanor Roosevelt Encyclopedia (which provides biographical coverage and also describes Eleanor Roosevelt's "mixed feelings about her brother....When he died, [Eleanor] had yet one more reason to turn to her own work in an effort to ease the ache in her heart."); a fair bit in this book about Justice Frank Murphy (noting that "Murphy's appointment of G. Hall Roosevelt as city comptroller proved a decisive step in his career"), and a bit here as well as in the local press about his work as Detroit city comptroller—and that's all from just a cursory search. Would he have received all that coverage if he hadn't been a Roosevelt? No. But "merit" is, for better or for worse, not a notability criterion, as the entries at Category:Royal children make plain. WP:NOTGENEALOGY can be relevant in some cases, but I don't think it is here: there is a veritable boatload of non-genealogical coverage (as discussed above), and the article describes Roosevelt from an encyclopedic perspective. Sometimes a merge to an article like Roosevelt family can be prudent, but in this case there's enough encyclopedic content to make that undesirable (see crit. 2 here). I thus feel that, given the sourcing, a stand-alone article about Hall Roosevelt is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to accessibility issues, the only newspaper linked where I even can see his name outside of headline titles is The Boston Globe (the others just blur out the actual article) while and Eleanor's Encyclopedia just gives a title page and the aforementioned books only appear to show some brief quotes. What else is there that specifically focuses on Hall as an individual and isn't just a work more about his sister, Presidential uncle, brother-in-law, children, or wives? Something where all text can easily be viewed is preferable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is often an inclination to decide which individuals should have articles based on our views of their personal merit or importance but that was rejected right back at the start of the development of our notability guidelines. No, we decided to judge notability based on coverage by what has been published externally and, although "published" has become assessed with increasing nuance over the years, plenty of appropriate material is available here. Thincat (talk)
 * Keep. There are three New York Times articles currently used on the article focusing on different points in the subject's life, and the NYT is considered a good source per WP:NYTIMES. After the subject died, Time reported on his death (seen here), as did the Burlington Free Press (seen here). The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project also has a profile on him (seen here). Easily passes GNG for me. --Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any concerns with the credibility of The New York Times. My issue with those particular links—and some of the others listed above—is that they require subscriptions (which not all readers will have), and this makes it harder to assess depth. As for your links, the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project is not considered independent of the subject when closely associated with family (namely his famous sister), and I don't believe Time is either because it's largely based off her comments on him. Conversely, The Burlington Free Press doesn't rely on family quotes or affiliations, so that would help show independent coverage. That's not saying your others are bad, just that they don't help as much with establishing notability. SNUGGUMS (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military,  and Engineering.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have plenty of coverage, including obituaries in major newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the other Keeps and, particularly, Extraordinary Writ and find the independent sources and roles the subject had to be significant and worthy, notwithstanding his family connections, which, in my opinion, only enhance his noteworthiness. In the article, I included the quote from his obituary from The New York Times, "even if he had not belonged to the nation's first family, he could have been justly proud of his career as an electrical engineer, World War flier, banker, financier and municipal official." Re: SNUGGUMS, I'm not sure why your accessibility issues with reviewing well known and reliable sources should discount the sources themselves. Perhaps you can request access from the Wikipedia Library? DACC23 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said those refs should be discounted altogether, just that their limited accessibility make it harder to assess them for depth and details. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.