Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarvis Family

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

doesnt establish notability. Nateji77 22:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Also it's only one line anyway. Delete Radiant! 23:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a geneological database. Szyslak 01:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, while this is not much of an article the Jarvises are one of the most important families in Toronto history. - SimonP 01:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but only after it is greatly expanded to establish notability. --Spinboy 01:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It has not been expanded, so is this now a vote to delete? -- James Teterenko (talk) 06:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 02:02 Z
• Keep. The subject is encyclopedic. CJCurrie 02:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Some of the Jarvis's are notable (e.g. Samuel & William) and they should have their own pages. Having an article on the family does not seem to make sense to me. Another sample Canadian family is the Aspers: we have articles for Izzy Asper and Leonard Asper, but nothing in Asper Family -- James Teterenko (talk) 02:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogy (articles on historic individuals are a different kettle of kin). Wyss 11:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -entirely vacuous.Brookie 19:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sub-stubs, but if someone expands this to also say "one of the most prominent Loyalist families in 19th century Canada, and a key reference in the study of the 19th century due to the large collection of letters between the extended Jarvis-Powell Family stored in The Loyalist Collection in the University of North Brunswick[1]" then they may change my vote to keep Mozzerati 20:46, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

On the other hand.... I've got several ancestors more famous than that yet none of my family's names have generic WP articles. Wyss 19:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I was arguing to keep, then I would say that there's a difference between a family which is deliberately studied as a family and one which has several famous individuals. Since I'm arguing to delete, because the article doesn't say anything about that, I won't disagree. VFD is not a cleanup tool and all that :-) Mozzerati 20:19, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Yes, in trying to be brief I neglected to say there's a line in there somewhere. Wyss 21:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. See the current version of Gahn for contrast. Rossami (talk) 14:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles, even substubs, of notable people? A-ok. But articles on their entire families? It'll take more than this one-liner to convince me to overlook precedent on genealogical entries. —Korath (Talk) 02:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I could be persuaded to change my vote if the article is rewritten and expanded to establish notability. But I'm not promising to. -R. fiend 20:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. Article in desperate need of expansion. Megan1967 05:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.