Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Barack Obama (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Barack Obama

AfDs for this article:
Family of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have had two previous discussions about this and the results were delete and no consensus so it seems fair to take another look. The article has grown into an extensive genealogy despite our policy that genealogy is not appropriate content. Obama's family is now stated to include people as diverse as Queen Elizabeth II and Elvis Presley and so it's time to call a halt before we all end up in there. Obama's immediate family can be covered in their own articles if they are notable or in a brief mention in Obama's article, if they are not. A relevant section already exists so we don't need this fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I was notified as though I were the article creator, even though I'm not, but as long I'm here: It's hardly in doubt that the topic of Obama's family has received plenty of coverage, what with birtherism and so forth. The two previous AfDs are no longer applicable, as they date from before before Obama's election as president. More importantly, an article with on the order of 5,000 readers a day probably meets a real need of our readers. If the article is excessively long, it can be trimmed via editing and does not need deletion.  Sandstein  08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess this nomination is motivated at least in part by the observation that articles such as this one are important tools for reigning in the growth of pseudo-biographies of the relatives of very notable people. In any case, that function alone is already sufficient reason to keep the article. The problem that Colonel Warden is describing can be solved by editing and by merging per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I am slightly irritated that Colonel Warden did not think of this himself, given the explicit guidance in the first item of WP:BEFORE to acquaint oneself with the deletion policy before nominating an article for deletion.
    That said, there are problems with this article. The apparent fact that Obama's mother is a sixteenth cousin of Queen Elizabeth II is of course very intriguing and is highly relevant to the noteworthy point that Obama's family tree is very international. But it seems to be built entirely on original research, and as far as I can tell not even the sources for the data used in this original research are indicated in the article. So this may have to go. Or maybe not. Maybe we should have a wider discussion about articles such as Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States or Line of succession to the British throne‎ (currently mentioning about 3,000 living people!), which all seem to have sourcing and notability/noteworthiness problems. Hans Adler 09:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article demonstrates that omnibus compilations such as this do not rein in growth; they instead encourage the proliferation of minor details which would not otherwise be able to get established. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great thing is that a person who is not interested can skip the whole thing if it's all in one place. Others can read it, and maybe even learn something -- if only about the interrelatedness of all humans.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Sandstein. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The genealogical articles entry at WP:NOTDIR allows genalogical lists for those with established fame, achivement or notoriety. The article gets up simply on policy. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Notable" since the topic has been covered in depth by many reliable sources, although perhaps in not as much detail as here. It is also a topic of interest to many people. I agree that some of it is not all that important, but there is no rule that everything has to be. Lots of people are interested in President Obama as a person, not just as a president. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irony - I think the Obama family overall has received enough RS coverage to merit an article, but I wonder how many AfDs Warden has opposed on "cleanup is not grounds for deletion" grounds. If about half of the idiot cruft can be lopped out of this article...the "distant relations" section is a gallery of trivia sourced to insipid "OMG look who the black man's distantly related to!" newspapers...it may be redeemable. Many of the trivial relations, such as the 20 yr old motorcycle accident victim or the cousin with no last name, need to be pruned. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are three questions here, I think. First off, is the topic "Family of Barack Obama" worthy of encyclopedic coverage? I think it is. Second, is the topic of the piece the subject of multiple instances of independent and trustworthy reportage? Clearly it is, I don't think anyone could possibly argue otherwise. Third, is this piece a content fork of Barack Obama? No, I don't believe it is — it is a readily-linked sub-page of that article established to keep the main piece from becoming too cumbersome to read. Pretty much a clear KEEP, in my book. That said, there is way too much genealogical trivia in this piece, it runs too long, and the layout is pretty ugly. Work to be done with the hedge-clippers, in other words. This is no reason to delete, of course, but suggestions for future editing. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And expand, expand, expand. This is after all what wikipedia is best at. John lilburne (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – What! And create individual articles for family members? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic of Obama's extended family is encyclopedic. WP:NOTEVERYTHING specifies that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, but it specifies that this concerns biographical articles and that less well known people should be included in other articles - such as this one. Obama's family has also received plenty of coverage in sources. I admit that the inclusion of the more distant "family members" is more tenuous, but if this is a problem then it can be solved by editing rather than deletion. Hut 8.5 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until such time as the President leaves office, this provides a reality check for birthers and others curious of his lineage. Overly inclusive genealogy can be edited for brevity. Cmholm (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be, perhaps, a bit bloated, but this article would be considered useful by a wide spectrum of people, especially concerning student reports and journalistic articles.Oberlinjoe (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Family_of_Barack_Obama_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137842789"