Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcellus Hartley Dodge, Jr.


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Marcellus Hartley Dodge, Jr.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I see nothing notable about this person except I'm really sure that the accident thing does not guarentee notability, which is basically what half the article is about, and many relatives of famous people have no articles. This one didn't even say what his profession was. Google check - =Elfin= - 341 06:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) He was a niece grandnephew to John D. Rockefeller
 * 2) He died in a car accident in France.
 * Delete. nn per nom (except Marcellus was a man). Clarityfiend 07:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oops, sorry about that! [[User:Elfin341| - =Elfin= - ]]341 23:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If he was Rockefeller's niece, that would be noteworthy. Clarityfiend 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete since the sum total of the information this article provides is duplicated in the one on his mother.  tomasz.  11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple independent, non trivial references. His death was the front page of the New York Times --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment NY Times, Time, but nothing he did at all notable whatsoever; he had no profession, he was an undergraduate. Interesting case-study. Would it have been front p. news today?--probably not, but the NYT covered society figures in much greater detail in the 1930s.  If the newspapers publish articles about selected rich people, and their children, does that make the children N? I argued above that people who were rich enough might be considered notable, with the presumption of having done something, but that would only apply to adults who made their own fortune. I think the two references and you're in theory of notability is simultaneously being proven both absurd in cases like this, and not followed, in others, such as Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Surely being involved in the largest US campus mass-murder is more notable than dying in an automobile accident. We have contradictory practices, which can be used at will to keep or not keep according to some unspecifiable reason for consensus.  There is one advantage of the automatic-in theory, which is that it eliminates the need for discussions like the present one.  DGG 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Some people are notable by birth, or by events occurring to them. Notability is determined by the amount of coverage a person gets. Wikipedians deciding what is notable is subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, one can be noteworthy for being noteworthy.  Unfortunate truth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agreed. Some people are noteworth for being noteworthy.  See Paris Hilton.  Bradybd 05:52, 30 May 2007 (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.