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. W.marsh 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Randolph Hearst III[edit]

George Randolph Hearst III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Seems to be considered notable only due to being related to notable people. Does hold some high-ranking executive jobs, but that doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:BIO, in other words. Originally prodded, but contested by Jerry lavoie. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this Afd Alf photoman 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, someone ids working on it but there needs to be more to avoid a 2nd nomination in a month Alf photoman 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His former position as publisher of the San Francisco Examiner newspaper is notable. --Eastmain 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to above, he is 140th on the last Forbes 400 list. Agent 86 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete per Dhartung. My bad - my eyes must have glazed over trying to sort out all the similar names. Agent 86 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 140th richest American apparently likes his privacy and is not much written about, but I suppose his having been the publisher of a major newspaper makes him notable. Edison 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He isn't. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being one of the 150 richest people in America and a CEO of a major notable company makes him notable. However, I'd suggest doing a style cleanup to place the references in a reference section at the end of the article. Dugwiki 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He isn't. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfortunately, this article has two sourcing problems. The "official bio" link leads to his cousin William Randolph Hearst III, and the Forbes link leads to his father George Randolph Hearst Jr.. His most notable position seems to be the Associate Publisher of the Albany Times-Union as verified by the BusinessWeek link. He was not publisher of the Examiner, that was his father. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed vote to Weak keep on the basis of the VH-1 hoax & lawsuit. Strange to be known for that, I suppose. Other than that he's about as un-notable as the son of a billionaire can get (or maybe not, if you're read F. Scott). --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with you. I see where you are coming from. I don't know if it matters at all, but I get the impression (from the press release) that he is being groomed for "higher office" and "more notability." I think time will tell on that number. Maybe I'm crazy. -- Ben (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I expanded the article, and added information about a lawsuit and two nonprofit groups of which he's a director. --Eastmain 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Weak Keep He's a publisher of famous periodicals, the Chairman of the board of a Fortune500 (ranked 287) company, and a member of a family that has their own wikipedia category. And he is currently 160 on the Forbes400. How much more notable would he have to be? And why was I not notified of this AfD????? Jerry lavoie 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to change my vote to Merge with new Hearst (family) article. Most of my previous arguments were based on erroneous information in previous versions of the article. (Some of which I actually contributed to the article, in error.)Jerry lavoie 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If for nothing else, the lawsuit satisfies WP:BIO in my book. -- Ben (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I glanced at a couple of the other Hearst Family articles before I brought myself to comment here. I have a really strange idea... How about an overarching Hearst Family article in which the grandchildren and great-grandchildren's articles are all merged? I think that it would be a bold thing to do... It would help us see the whole Hearst family mess all at once. Any thoughts? -- Ben (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Families with categories seem like excellent candidates for such articles, although they are often disputed per WP:NOT (not for genealogical data) and through increasing hostility to lists. I've worked on a few myself. The key point is whether there are enough bluelinks and I think this is certainly the case for the Hearsts. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most of the arguments brought up here are not true, as they are instead relevant to his relatives. Such as the claim that he is one of the 150th richest men, that he was the publisher of the Examiner, etcetera. The VH1 thingy is true, although I strongly doubt an article would be included on any person for that reason - how many lawsuits are filed in the United States every day? He happens to be related to famous rich people, that's it. A Hearst family article doesn't sound too bad! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be fair, several of the early votes were based on a version of the article that confused him with two different relatives. That wasn't the fault of those editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As those aren't <s>-ed, I thought it should be mentioned. Jerry lavoie, I did not notify you because I assumed you were watching the article as you just had de-prodded it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair... I suppose it is typical for people to watch pages they prod and unprod. Thank-you for all you do here in wikipedia. I meant you no ill-feelings in my question above. Jerry lavoie 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain's added info. There is enough non-trivial coverage of this person. --Oakshade 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.