Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States


 * 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) B  music  ian  03:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very poorly sourced. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Paolo Napolitano  09:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information is useful.  Many of the items listed are pretty well known to be true; leave the tag up for a year and see if the references improve. Warren Dew (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - There is a citation to a single book on ancestors of American presidents in the article. I've no doubt that the genealogy and ancestry of American presidents is a subject that has been published somewhere. However, the one key citation in this article is a user-created page on the Geni website, which is probably the source of the other miscellaneous information about cousins and descendants. If the article is about ancestors, the poorly sourced, miscellaneous information should be cut out. Sionk (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep. This informatoin is interesting and if you look at the source at your local library you will find that he did an amazing amount of research. I have used this article frequently and hard drives are cheap. Stidmatt (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think that there can be serious doubt that the topic is notable in the sense that people have been interested enough in it over the years to devote a great deal of time to researching individual relationships and that the information can appropriately be drawn together into a single article. And with respect to Sionk, I am not convinced that there are grounds for narrowing it to ancestry - a close relationship by marriage might be much more significant than a blood relationship. The weakness in sourcing is a major defect but I would not wish to delete for this reason unless there were serious doubts that reliable sources exist. Whilst I am struck as an outsider as to how very distant and inconsequential most of these relationships are, and that a great many native born US citizens will be able to claim similar relationships with former presidents, the British royal family, and with me for all I know, those are not grounds for deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As as stand-alone list (which this article essentially is), it seems to work. It is of encylcopedic value and has a solid enough definition to keep it from becoming too broad. The concept of grouping presidents by genealogical relationship has been done (as the references attest to); the article thus adheres to WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is very interesting and useful information. A President of the United States is of course interesting, and it is always interesting to know how famous people may be related to eachother. While sixth cousins three times removed and so on perhaps is more of a curious fact, father-son relationships and close in-laws are really noteworthy. Pinut (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides the refs cited in the article, I have seen numerous other articles stating the ancestral relationships between US Presidents. Edison (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep "Very poorly sourced" is a terrible rationale for deletion.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable content, regardless of any need for improvement. This goes on the nom's permanent record.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As people have said above, the article contains very useful informations. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 13:36, 29 February 2012 (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.