Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arquette family


 * 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. Sr13 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Arquette family

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this article may be borderline encyclopedic from a certain perspective, it does not cite sources, and adds no value to the encyclopedia - it is nothing but a list of Arquettes and spouses, dates, and familial relations, all of which appear in the relevant articles of the individuals mentioned. It therefore violates NOT a collection of loosely associated persons (their careers didn't necessarily hinge on each other), and should be deleted. MSJapan 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unneeded. Information can be found in the various articles themselves. If it were a history of the Arquette acting family, that would be a different story.--Ispy1981 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep See others in Category:American families, its simply a list of members of the family, all with articles in chronological order, instead of the alphabetical version provided by the category. Its a well organized navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but cleanup. There is basis for an article, but it needs improvement.  This has been done with other notable families.  i.e.: hockey's Sutter family. Resolute 05:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete adds nothing notable that does not already exist in other entries. Bigdaddy1981 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag for sources. Perfectly reasonable special case of a disambiguation page if you want to see it that way. Better all this information right here than a paragraph explaining it all (or more likely, just partly) in each article. Provides a merge location for less notable family members. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to List of members of the Arquette family] - Tiswas (t) 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for navigational purposes. Article serves to replace the deleted category for the family members and the general feeling, at least at CFD, is that articles on families are superior to categroies for illustrating the family relationships among the members. One's immediate family members and spouses are certainly not "loosely associated." Otto4711 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a valuable cross reference, similar to Barrymore family. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; per above. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Dhartung, Otto4711, and Smerdis of Tlön. All good arguments to keep. IPSOS (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: - If we're going to do family articles, then how one differentiate between duplication of aterial in articles, navigation between articles, and WP:NOT (specifically guideline 1 re: geneaology)? ?  For example, there is a whole Barrymore family tree in the above-mentioned article, not all of whom are famous or even have articles themselves.  The article even states that only four of the younger Barrymores went into acting, and those four are the only ones who have WP articles.  So I guess I'm a bit confused, because that "family article" looks a lot like a genealogical directory to me. MSJapan 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The question seems a bit beyond the scope of this AFD. Otto4711 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps (and I'll probably bring it up somewhere once I figure out exactly where it goes), but I started the AfD based on the directory assumption, and as no one else seems to think so, the distinction would seem pertinent to this AfD as wellas on a general level. MSJapan 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - okay, it's a list, but an interesting one - and it orders the entries to provide additional informatuion. Wily D 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list and should be moved/renamed as such.  Jody B   talk 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the phrase "Arquette family" gets 75 hits on a Google News Archive search, if you limit the search to those articles in which at least one of the names Rosanna, David, or Patricia occur. This is clearly a notable family, not just a bunch of notable people who happen to be related. DHowell 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.