Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rockefeller Junior

David Rockefeller Junior

David Rockefeller Junior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rockefeller Jr., and little to nothing has changed over the past 8 years regarding notability. The only trustworthy sources that mention him in much detail seem to be interviews (or at least pieces that heavily rely on the subject's own commentary) when they aren't from corporations he's affiliated with. These things don't count as independent coverage. Anything that could be considered independent is probably just minor name drops in things more focused on other Rockefeller family members. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources are actually not directly affiliated to the Rockefeller's (except maybe the Asia Society). He also seems to have more coverage than many of his siblings (so if we apply rules consistently, either their articles have to be deleted or his has to be included). FT also called him the "new patriarch" of the Rockefeller's after his fathers' death (See: https://www.ft.com/content/5fa4777a-10ec-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afus199620 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure InfluenceWatch is credible (especially when the layout's formatting makes me suspect it mirrored a past version of his Wikipedia article) or what the point of adding "directly" here was when one cannot be "indirectly" affiliated with anyone or anything, but let's not downplay how he's a trustee for National Center for family Philanthropy while the We Are Family Foundation is an institution his wife co-founded. FYI, a spousal connection does count as an affiliation, which also definitely means Asia Society is one when his uncle started that up (the "grandnephew" part it gives is an obvious mistake when David Sr. was actually a brother of John III instead of a nephew). Palace of Versailles just gives a one-sentence mention, which doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV and neither would obituaries of family members that merely list him among surviving relatives. As for siblings, whether they warrant their own pages is a separate matter, so using the existence of those as a rationale to keep this would be a WP:WAX fallacy when their notability (or lack thereof) has no bearing on David Jr.'s personal merits. You're free to start other AFDs for any of them. The Financial Times piece you linked isn't by any means independent of the subject when containing lots of his commentary, and same for things like CNBC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rockefeller family: Restoring the redirect is appropriate since the sources are insufficiently independent of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect to Rockefeller family?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect is better than outright deletion and better sources are likely to come. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2025 (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.