Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Roddenberry

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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Roddenberry[edit]

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

Not individually notable, classic case of an attempt to inherit notability from a parent. Refs do not establish notability. Prod declined with the reasoning "generally notable in trek fandom" which isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Hairhorn (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I appreciate the nominator's point, but I think that there has been enough coverage of the younger Roddenberry through the years--especially in connection with his Trek Nation documentary--to satisfy WP:GNG. See e.g. [1][2][3] and these GNews results [4][5] On balance I think deleting the article leaves an unnecessary hole in our Star Trek coverage. On the other hand, the current version of the article is overly promotional, and that should be remedied. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eugene Wesley Roddenberry is Gene Roddenberry's son and is a philantrophist through the The Roddenberry Foundation. He was also the consulting producer for the Star Trek fan series Star Trek: New Voyages (2004 - 2011). Added a reference--the LA Times--which briefly interviews Rod Roddenberry directly and solicits his views on the 2009 Star Trek film. If he wasn't important in the Trek fandom and universe, the LA Times wouldn't bother to ask him about his views on this film. So he passes WP:GNG. --Artene50 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a second WP:RS here from USA Today which extensively interviews Rod Roddenberry about his life and activities after his father's death--and also his difficult life living in the shadow of his 'legendary' father as USA Today says. I would say that the subject here passes WP:GNG for having media coverage in 2 separate newspapers. --Artene50 (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two secondary sources, along with his growing credits, make him notable in his own right. Nightscream (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Nighscream's comment: two of the filmography entries are for non-trek films. I recommend trying to find at least one good reference for each entry in the filmography table. --Mirokado (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with reliable sources, including the LA Times and USA Today. Electric Catfish 18:10, 29 July 2012 (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.