Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman 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   delete. The keep side has not been able to successfully refute the statements by the delete voters that the article fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. NW ( Talk ) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Herman Rockefeller

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article does not meet the notability requirements outlined in Notability (criminal acts). This is better suited to a Wikinews article. Even if the incident itself were notable (in encyclopedic terms), such notability is not automatically conferred on the victim. See the policy here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources indicate he was notable prior to his death as a businessman. Have a look at all this coverage from the 1990s (1) and 2000s (2) --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response) The article says next to nothing about his significance as a businessman. In fact it indicates that his disappearance and murder are the source of his "notability".  I actually agree with the article in that respect - he is only known after the crime.  His work as a businessman does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO.  Many of the news articles in the Google search provided by Mkativerata relate to the Rockefellers in the US.  I can only find 15 Google archive news articles relating to "Herman Rockefeller" between 1990 and 2010  and most of those are quotes as a company spokesperson (for example, "Rockefeller says that the balance sheet is sound...")  This isn't a strong case for notability.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (response) It doesn't matter. His missing person status and death makes him notable due to the publicity he has attracted. Madeline McCann was not notable before she was reported missing either. Her newsworthiness makes her notable now. Wallie (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response). Why doesn't it matter?  If he wasn't notable before the incident, then the incident itself is what needs to be debated.  In that case the notability guidelines of criminal acts and (given that this is an article about the individual and not the incident), the notability of the victim are what is important.  WP:VICTIM provides the guidelines and, if read objectively, there's no doubt that HR is not notable.  In case you don't want to look it up, the notability of a victiom is 1) due to notability before he/she became a victiom; or 2) the victim, as a victim, played a significant role in the incident and the incident has historical significance.  Historical significance cannot yet be determined, as it is a recent event.  So, my point (which I believe is established in the debate here) is that he was not notable prior to becoming a victim and, as a victim, is not notable under the policy guidelines of WP:VICTIM.  I'd be interested in a keep argument proving otherwise, but so far (as at 6 February) I remain completely unconvinced by any of the arguments raised - and I'd be as bold to suggest that any objective analysis of Wikipedia's notability policy would lead to the same conclusion.   Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Person is not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (response) Well, he is notable. He is the number one news item in at least two countries. You have to prove he is not notable. That will be difficult for you. Wallie (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response). Not that difficult.  The quoted Wikipedia policies and guidelines make it rather easy! Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Rockefeller was notable in the finance and property development sectors long before his death. He has had a media presence since 1998 at least (see ). His significant business achievements, his bizarre double life as respected family man and sex swinger, and his disappearance and violent death place him well beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response). See my comment above as to his notability before the crime.  He simply wasn't.  He may have been wealthy, but he just wasn't notable.  His (very little) previous press coverage consists almost entirely of him being quoted as a company spokesperson.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a high publicized case in Australia, New Zealand and in the United States. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to delete it. Wallie (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Above comment. --SamB135TalkContribs 08:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Respone). If the event itself is the notable thing, which it may be in relation to WP:CRIME, then that should be the subject of the article, not the victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
 * Essential to Keep This is clearly a criminal act which is notable for the prominence of the victim, coinciding with the luridity of his lifestyle. Preservation for the record of the coincidence of the two qualities is notable for the science of sociology, where a better understading of this type of lifestyle and this prominent personality type is of paramount value for a better understanding of socioeconomics and psychology, also known as psychoeconomics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. None of the above keeps provide reasons in accordance with WP policy, as per WP:BIO or WP:VICTIM.  With regard to the notability of victims, the policy states "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline..." So, we have to look at the notability of the crime itself or of Mr Rockefeller's life before  the crime.  If it's the crime that's notable, that should perhaps be the subject of the article, not the victim.  Before the crime, Mr Rockefeller was a very ordinary and, according to his family's own press statement, a very private person.  15 news articles in 20 years - most just quoting him as a company spokesperson certainly doesn't make him notable.  With regard to the crime as an example of psychoeconomics, if that is indeed the case, I would recommend a merge with Psychoeconomics.  I feel that this deletion must be argued in accordance with policy, otherwise we have a case of Wikipedia becoming a newspaper, in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
 * The Wikipedia guideline WP:ANYBIO notes that "a person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... (1) The person has received a notable award or honor". The Sydney Morning Herald notes that Rockefeller "holds a masters degree in business administration (honours, George Fisher Baker scholar), from the Harvard Graduate School of Business." . Wikipedia notes that the top academic honor at HBS is the Baker Scholar designation (High Distinction), given to the top 5% of the graduating MBA class. Top 5% in top business school ... notable? WWGB (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Baker Award is, in my opinion, the first valid argument to keep the article. This does, however raise a few questions/issues, which would be helpful to discuss in resolving this debate:
 * Is the Baker Award notable? It doesn't have an WP entry in its own right, nor is there an list of winners (cf. List of Rhodes Scholars
 * We still have a single event situation - all the references for the entire article are from the disapperance and murder. That makes it look, prima facie, that there was no notability before the event.  The Baker Award is a single sentence in a news article about the crime.  Are there any other sources?
 * Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Compromise. Alright, since I created the article, I could create one, like many of you said that relates to the actual murder of him. This is big news in Australia and New Zealand, and it also made news in the United States - I definitely believe something about it should be on Wikipedia. I could create something like, Murder of Herman Rockefeller or Disappearance of Herman Rockefeller, and just merge him into it, though like many other pages it would probably be better to just keep the murder article in with his bio. --SamB135TalkContribs 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "compromise" anything. There is no argument here from "many of you". Just one editor is strongly defending the deletion of the article. Let's just wait for the AfD to take its course. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Marginally notable as a businessman at best (and that is stretching it) and will be forgotten 3 months from now. A non-notable "murder of the the week". There are on average 302 murders in Australia per year and most of them, like this one, are not suitable for an article -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete In general with victims, the question is whether or not they would be sufficiently notable, without the one event, to have an article. In this case I have to go with no, in spite of the great work being done to it - the only mentions of him prior to his death were trivial, and the award isn't sufficiently notable to have made a difference. Perhaps if his death becomes more significant then things will change, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be enough, I'm afraid. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If "the question is whether or not they would be sufficiently notable, without the one event" then why do people like Madeline McCann and Maria Korp have Wikipedia articles? WWGB (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess in the case of Madeline McCann that the event is very, very big - if Herman Rockefeller's death becomes more important, even if not on that scale, then I'd definitly support keeping it. It just isn't at the moment. I'm not sure in the case of Maria Korp, although my recollection is that the euthenasia controversy, combined with the crime, was significant - more so than either one on its own - and that moves it away from being one event or, possibly, being covered in an article about either single event. But I'd need to think about that should it end up at AfD. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. if he's still getting coverage in 12 months time then recreate. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move. I don't think this falls under the victim guidelines as the page is about the events, not so much the person. I vote the page be changed to Murder of Herman Rockefeller as previously suggested and as per WP:ONEVENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.191.54 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)  — 59.167.191.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, BLP1E. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
 * BLP1E? But he's dead ..... WWGB (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:ONEEVENT then :). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment. Agree with WWGB in relation to the compromise proposal by amB135.  I've strongly argued a position, but that doesn't mean that I am necessarily right - or that the consensus will go "my way".  I'm more than happy to go with the consensus, once that is determined.  Thanks, however, for the willingness to compromise and perhaps the proposal should be discussed (i.e. this might not be a straightforward keep/delete debate).  Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment in relation to Maria Korp - I think that article is in the same category as this one. If the outcome of this current debate is anything other than "keep", I think we should open that one up for debate too.  I think Madeline McCann is more difficult - she's had sustained and very widespread coverage, but it would be an interesting debate...  Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are many articles like this one, such as : Murder of Liam Ashley or even this one Disappearance of Aisling Symes - the first was mainly national news in New Zealand, and the second made international news, like Herman Rockefeller. I do believe we should keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamB135 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly he has adequate notability for an article even if his death is not taken into account. So by all means create an article for the incident, but there is justification to keep this article at the same time. dramatic (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response). Why? Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * clearly a weak WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. СЛУЖБА (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Response). Why? Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Herman Rockefeller article had over 12,000 visits in its first week, which suggests that the Wikipedia community finds it a useful encyclopedic article that summarises the past and present publicly-available information concerning Rockefeller. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL, the number of visits would relate to his high current media presence particularly in Australia, the best test would be 3-6 months time. RECENT clearly applies here. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This case has captivated the interest of the nation and the article will also be of interest as the murder trial progresses. He was a person of interest in life and a notable business person, so this article's creation is timely. Matt (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ''(Response): WP:INTERESTING states "personal interest...is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article..." As far as notability is concerned, this needs to be argued against valid WP policy guidelines, otherwise I believe WP:JUSTAVOTE appiles.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Herman Rockefeller IS notable in Australia and in New Zealand, in the latter case because of his public relationsihp with Prime Minister John Key.  Anyone who has been in the news as much as he has been is surely notable.  One question I haven't been able to resolve is whether or not he is related to the Rockefeller family, or whether the name is just a coincidence.  If anybody has any sources either way, it would be helpful to clear the matter up here. David Cannon (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. "(Robert Rockefeller) said the family was not related to the legendary American business clan" . WWGB (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability is not inherited.  Somebody isn't notable, just because he/she is/was friends with someone notable.  Read WP:NOTINHERITED for more information.  One must be notable in one's own right in accordance with Wikipedia's notability policy.  If this isn't argued in a keep position, the weight we should put on that position ought to be significantly reduced.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (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.