Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Ruffin Tyler

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. notability is not inherited Mr.Z-man 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Ruffin Tyler

Non-notable grandson of president John Tyler. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Agree with nomonation, not notable. --SSman07 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His accomplishments as cofounder of Chem-Treat Inc (which has net sales in excess of $200 million annually) would appear to be notable in and of themselves; I'm presuming that there was no knowledge of chemistry and business passed on to him by President Tyler. Mandsford (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only real notice taken of him was his $5 million contribution to William and Mary, which isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Veritas (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy's story is interesting--because of this article I learned a lot more about John Tyler. For philosophical and/or moral reasoning, see "The Originist" by Orson Scott Card, an extension of Asimov's Foundation series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarahemlite (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just being the living grandson of an important someone born in the 1700s confers notability, much as being the last surviving veteran confers notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? Aren't they notable because they're covered substantially in reliable sources? Should we have an article for the last surviving daughters of the Confederacy, the last surviving grandchildren of people born before 1800, etc.? It seems to me that one can't bundle together claims of notability. Either he's notable for being the living grandson of someone born before 1800, which he's not, or he's notable for being the living grandson of a President, which he's not. --Michael White^T·C 04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless somebody produces evidence that this individual has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (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.