Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Children of the 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 06:10Z 

List of Children of the Presidents of the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - since this aricle is being (improperly) cited as a defense for the also-nominated article Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, I thought perhaps this one ought to be nominated now rather than later. The children of world leaders, whether they are the children of a US president or of a Canadian Prime Minister or a Filipino president, are not inherently notable in and of themselves. The proper place for the otherwise non-notable offspring of presidents to be listed is in the article about the individual president. Otto4711 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 4.156.111.151 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete This is an indiscriminate list of trivia. WP:NOT  Jerry lavoie 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could not find where it applies in WP:NOT. Jjmillerhistorian 15:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't seen the other debate. This is one of the few instances where I feel justified to invoke WP:NOT.  I feel the information about children of presidents should be preserved, especially since many (but not all!) of them do have articles, and because presidents themselves are inherently super-notable.  Perhaps I would have created this information discretely in each president's article, but what's done is done, and it's too much trouble to alter the status quo with a massive merge. YechielMan 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above. Just because information may come up in a game of 'trivial pursuit' doesn't mean the information is trivia. This is a discriminating classification of people a sufficiant number of which have by their actions shown that this classification has historical relevance.
 * Delete per nom or Merge to daddy's article. If they are notable in their own right, like a novelist son of Franklin Roosevelt or a soldier son of Theodore Roosevelt or a lawyer son of Abe Lincoln, they can certainly have their own articles, but being related to a notable person only entitles you to possibly being mentioned in thir article. Edison 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about them being "entitled" to anything. Being included in a list isn't a benefit, and it doesn't suggest that they need a separate article if they're not notable. This logic would apply, basically, to eliminate any list. --lquilter 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you hit the nail on the head. To be worth keeping, a list has to provide a benefit over and above other ways that we can present the information.  With this list and the related list of children of Canadian Prime Ministers, there needs to be some value in the list itself.  Ask yourself: why would anyone need such a list other than for the sake of knowing trivia?  If you can't come up with a good answer, then the list should be deleted. --Richard 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't need to repeat myself; later in the page I point out that the children of political leaders have been studied within political biography, history, and sociology, and give a few cites. Apparently, people go with their gut instinct on what is trivia. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a very useful rule.--lquilter 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, us Wikipedians contribute as best we can with the knowledge we have. It is one of the joys of Wikipedia that in the course of AFD, I learn all sorts of stuff that I didn't know before.  I read what you wrote below and it is perhaps convincing.  What I propose is that somebody (perhaps you) write the article as a stub right now (a paragraph or two with the references you provided below will suffice).  If this had been done at the outset, this entire discussion might have been different.  I suspect, however, that it will eventually turn out that children of Presidents are not far different from children of CEOs and other community leaders.  That's just my personal speculation, though, and, as OR, has no place in this discussion or anywhere else in Wikipedia.  --Richard 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, ooh, how about this one? "You don't go to Wikipedia with the knowledge you want, you go to Wikipedia with the knowledge you have." --Richard 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Children of U.S. Presidents are inherently notable. This list is not indiscriminate. Once again, I ask if anyone using the word "indiscriminate" actually knows what it means. Anyone? --- RockMFR 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is useful information. They may not all individually be notable enough to have wikipedia articles, but there are issues that come from being a child of a US president / world leader - that can and will make it useful to have such a list. (And it's exactly the sort of thing that, if it were to come up on WP:CFD, I would say delete and listify. In fact, the fact that they aren't all notable enough to have their own articles only makes the list that much more useful; because there couldn't even be a category even if we wanted one.)--lquilter 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this is useful information, since the same information is conveyed in the articles for individual presidents. We don't need lists of children for every head-of-state in the world. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A list gathers information ... that is its useful function. The fact that it is redundant is irrelevant. --lquilter 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Information already found where it belongs - in the article on each Prez. Being a child of a President is not inherently notable, and the subject of "Children of U.S. Presidents" is not worthy of an article, thereby making this list similarly unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being related to someone, even someone as obviously notable as the President of the USA, does not confer inherent notability. Individual sons and daughters merit a passing mention in the parent article, that's all. - fchd 06:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep At present Wikipedia indicates it acts as an Almanac to some extent. It's not unusual for children of Presidents to be listed in Almanacs. It's also useful for when Presidents die and you see the kids on TV.--T. Anthony 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per fchd. Being a child of a president doesn't make you notable per se. --Folantin 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reason to create lists of non-notable people. Moreschi Deletion! 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would Folantin, Morschi, and all the other people who say this is a list of non-notable people please explain how a list of "non-notable" people has so many blue links (and I note that some of the ones who don't, should, and will, no doubt, someday)? And why a topic which is of obvious sociological importance -- the study of access to power & transfer of power among kin -- is being dismissed as "non-notable"?  I would refer people to the entire Category:Nobility, an automated list basically tracking families with political power, and ask for someone to make a clear distinction about why political families in democratic country are somehow "not notable". --lquilter 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious really: because nobles inherit titles and power and hence notability, whereas in democracies children of presidents and premiers don't. --Folantin 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then those would apply only to the method for inheritance, such as primogeniture; and I would note that in democracies children of presidents are considerably more likly to become presidents themselves, than children not of presidents. ... Regardless, "non notability" applies to articles dedicated to the individual; it doesn't apply to them being mentioned or listed in other articles. An article (list) about children of the presidents of the US must be judged as to whether that topic, is, itself, notable.  Judging by presence of published literature and scholarship on the subject, it is.  Inclusion or being mentioned in the article doesn't require independent notability. --lquilter 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize (which will also ensure only notable subjects will get articles, and not just Foo is the son of President Bar type articles. /Blaxthos 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you, this will not survive as a category (it may have been deleted already). A category is simply an automated, alphabetic, non-notated list; so if you think something is appropriate as a category, then it is definitely appropriate as an article-style list. --lquilter 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep many people on the list are notable whether being a child of a President or not. Were they not notable then as the Bush twins are today?  I guess Chelsea Clinton and JFK, Jr. are nobodys too.  Throughout history the media has made them notable if they hadn't made themselves notable.  Many of them have just been forgotten like several Presidents.    This page should be kept.  Jjmillerhistorian 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. RockMFR makes a good argument. References listed, including "All the presidents children", so it meets WP:V and when someone writes a whole book on the subject, it meets WP:N as well. The president's immediate family are always well covered in decent biographies, so the subject is of sufficient interest to support a list like this. Many of the children have individual articles, and the page is therefore a useful navigational tool as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason given for the Canadian article; just as valid and encyclopedic as a listing of first ladies. 23skidoo 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to point out that there are, in fact, a number of books and studies on this specific topic -- e.g., Underwood, All the President's Children; Zwicker, "America's Royalty", Presidential Studies Quarterly; Wead, All the Presidents' Children; Angelo, First Families: The Impact of the White House on Their Lives -- and that's just the top few listings from an amazon.com search; I haven't yet done a search of a major research db. This is a well-studied topic, clearly a topic which begs for an article; and a comprehensive list would be an indispensable complement to the article. --lquilter 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep family and friends of world leaders affect their characters and decisions, making them notable and important to historians, biographers and political scientists. No one would argue about a list of, say, First Ladies of the United States. -Markeer 14:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked all through Notability and could not find where it said notability was inheritable.  There is no need to merge as if the child is not on the parent article, it's lack of notability there speaks for it's self.  Jeepday 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment However, Wikipedia:Notability addresses a subject's suitability for individual articles. This is a list; therefore while some of these individuals may not, on their own, warrant individual articles, taken as a group, they do. Put another way, presence of some of the more obscure First Children on this list may preempt the creation of articles on said children later, in turn preempting future AFD debates when their articles are nominated for deletion. 23skidoo 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a list of President's pets! Are pets more notable then children?  I'd say their children have done more notable things then the pets, unless pooping on the White House lawn receives highest notability.  Jjmillerhistorian 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for getting rid of the list of pets, not for keeping this one. --Folantin 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get rid of the pets list, I was making a point Jjmillerhistorian 16:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, making a point like this generally backfires in exactly this way (in fact, if I interpret Otto4711 right, that's how this particular AfD started) - seems to work better to hunt up references instead as has been done here by others. --Zeborah 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need to hunt up references, I have the book by Doug Wead. References are mentioned in the article.  I see your point, it could start an unintetional delete the pooch list. Jjmillerhistorian 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per several above, especially Lquilter. Nb Members of royal families (a category quite widely defined) are, under a proposed guideline, inherently notable. This is the relevant passage from Notability (royalty):

''Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.''

''This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria). Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO.''

- since the US seems to be moving fast in the direction of a hereditary political class, the same could well be argued for this lot. Johnbod 17:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to say "grin" but it's actually more of a rueful grimace of acknowledgement ... --lquilter 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment note that Notability (royalty) is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. with a history since 13:07, 7 September 2006 while WP:BIO is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia with a history since 14:16, 1 August 2003 Signed Jeepday 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I said it was proposed; actually its history goes back to August 4,06. Johnbod 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RockMFR. Mathmo Talk 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RockMFR, Iquilter, Jjmillerhistorian. - Jord 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that Jimmy Carter is notable does not make his kids notable in any way shape or form. Jcuk
 * Jack Carter (politician) and Amy Carter not notable? Are you sure?  This list contains many notable people, some not, but more notable than you realize.  I'm sure years from now there will be people who think the Bush twins aren't notable.  Notability should not be an opinion. Jjmillerhistorian 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said they were not notable in their own right. They are not notable just for being the fruit of Jimmy Carter's loins however. Jcuk 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge with President's article if not notable in their own right. It is appropriate to list all children, notable or not, in father's article, as it relates to father's biographical information, but the list on its own is a simple repository of trivia. --lightspeedchick 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject is notable, as others have pointed out with published titles on the subject (even if, as a non-USAn, it seems bizarre to me that an elected official's children are important by virtue of association). --Zeborah 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment when Gerald Ford died Wikipedians were editing his children's pages like crazy. I even created the missing article someone was looking for.  Then we have Jenna, Barbara and Chelsea making national news doing common things, like having a fake I.D., having a purse stolen, or have voter registration problems.  If they weren't children of U.S. Presidents noone would care about what they do.  Nothing else is notable about them, yet they have their own articles in Wikipedia. Jjmillerhistorian 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - I suspect that the people who are voting delete don't get the historical significance of the relationship, probably because this is merely a list (which raises a trivia red flag for folks). It strongly suggests that the list, as such, needs at least a preface describing the scholarship that has studied these people as an identifiable group, and their significance in political and biographical studies. It's a larger problem with lists: That some lists are clearly trivia, and some lists are really the germ of an important idea; but it's difficult for people to distinguish between the two without context and information. Perhaps the deleters (who appear to be a minority, albeit a substantial one) would be willing to suspend judgment for a while until the most robust of these Children-of-leaders articles (the US presidents' kids) can be fleshed out with some additional text & supporting references. --lquilter 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a few references to books but don't have time right now to do a full search in Historical Abstracts or a US history database. --lquilter 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, much for the same reasons in the children of PMs debate. In fact, I'll plagerize myself and repeat what I said there, as I think it's just as applicable. I see nothing being said in defense of this article that goes beyond it being "useful" or "interesting". Many useful, interesting things are not encyclopedic. To me this is more a specialized genealogy directory or something that belongs in the (literally) parent article. For those individuals who have achieved some sort of notability in their own right, beyond what their parents have done, having a separate article is enough. Agent 86 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'm stunned this is even being debated.  Notability is not inheritable, but the children of US Presidents have always and will always be notable people -- they are members of the First Family of the United States.  While I understand that just because every item of a list is notable the list itself is not necessarily notable -- that's simply not the case here.  The people on this list have been thrust into a common spotlight.  The US President is not just president, but also Head of State.  This is notable, verifiable, discriminate, not original research.  No grounds for deletion exist on this article.--JayHenry 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Last I heard, the Head of State of the United States is not a hereditary position, despite the lineage of the current incumbent. Neither is notability. Agent 86 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Agent86, I did say in my second sentence that it is not inheritable. But this is a straw man argument.  I do not see anyone suggesting that "Notability is hereditary".  What is being discussed is whether or not there are grounds to delete List of Children of the Presidents of the United States.  The fact is: there are not grounds.  It is notable by any standard to be the child of the president.  It is also verifiable.  It is not indiscriminate.  The people trying to delete this seem concerned that the inclusion of this obviously encyclopedic list would somehow set a precedent that would make the children of Dustin Diamond notable.  It would do no such thing.--JayHenry 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is NOT notable by my standard to be the child of anyone, including the president of the USA. If the offspring are notable in their own right, fine - they then deserve their own article. But this list - no way. - fchd 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By your standard fchd, because it's an opinion to you. Now thanks to JayHenry I have to scap my 'children of Saved by the Bell cast' list idea erg! Jjmillerhistorian 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, by my standard. It was a response to JayHenry's statement that It is notable by any standard to be the child of the president. (my emphasis). My opinion still stands, that while individual children of the President of the USA may become notable, a list like this is not. - fchd 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. My point is that by any possible reading of Wikipedia's own definition of notable, all these people would pass. Here, give it a gander: notable.  These are U.S. Presidents -- they all have multiple authoritative academic and popular biographies.  All their children are mentioned throughout these biographies and in the constant news coverage that has surrounded every president in American history.  What portion of notable does a single person on this list fail?  Or even the list itself?  Being a member of the first family is obviously notable.  And countless non-trivial books and news articles have been written on what it's like.  It's a perversion of Wikipedia's notability guideline to suggest that the children of U.S. Presidents or a list of those children, wouldn't pass it.--JayHenry 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list, and it provides context beyond what can be achieved through the MediaWiki categorization scheme.  If I were researching children of United States presidents I would find this to be very useful to have handy.  (jarbarf) 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next? List of Pets of the Presidents of the United States? --Vsion 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering, ... then I found it. Here you go: List of United States Presidential pets. :D --Vsion 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is encyclopedic and worth the few bytes of space it occupies.  RFerreira 09:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of a president. They play an important part in the life of the president. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and they'd say "who's that girl?" Being a child of a U.S. President or any world leader, current or not, is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: A number of people have argued, above, that the list should be deleted because it contains people who are not notable (gist: "If they're notable give them their own article."). That is a misapprehension of how WP:N works.  WP:N applies to the subject of an article; not to every individual fact within an article.  In a biographical article, the subject of the article -- the person discussed -- must be notable.  In a article about a topic (which is what a list is), not every individual component need be individually notable.  See, e.g., WP:FICT which describes making lists of characters in books, rather than individual pages for books.
 * WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. I have already added references to multiple works on the list itself. (Some have argued that actually all children of US presidents are individually notable; my point is that they need not be notable to be mentioned in an article, and a list is a type of article.) My own take on this list/article is that it really should be an article with an embedded list, which would contextualize the list aspect and make the significance clear; however, even as a list with a bit of prefatory material, the subject of the list is notable.
 * WP:5P: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. This is the sort of list that would be (and is) included in specialized encyclopedias of political biographies.
 * List guideline: 3 purposes of lists, each of which this article provides: information, navigation, and development. Information because it is an independently notable topic. Navigation because this is a group of people with commonalities, but it would not be desirable for this to be a category. Development because, looking at the list, some members of it need articles and don't presently have them.
 * --lquilter 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comments at Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada. And I hope those arguing for "keep" here will do the same over there. Children of the leader of a government are notable by virtue of their relationship to him or her; and such lists act as useful aids to research for biographical anthologies, etc. Fishhead64 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All of my comments on Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada are hereby incorporated by reference. --lquilter 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:LISTCRUFT puts it best: In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. Children of the Presidents of the United States is not a legitimate encyclopedia topic. JChap2007 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it was a legitimate topic for the multiple books listed in the References and Further Reading sections of the article, so why would it not be a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia to cover? Dl2000 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * U.S. Presidents are legitimate enough to have the list of their children. Their children are even in a section of each of their articles dealing with Early Life, etc.  Even Chelsea Clinton has her own article and there is nothing notable about her except she is the daughter of a U.S. President, nothing more. Jjmillerhistorian 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate method of organizing this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan McBeth (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete '''Opinion withheld pending creation of an article on Children of the Presidents of the United States per discussion with User:Lquilter above.
 * I believe that every article on a US President (or Canadian Prime Minister) should list that person's family (spouse and children). If the children are notable in their own right, then they should get an article.  However, this list has no justification for existence. --Richard 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per supporters above. First families are a notable topic of interest as demonstrated by multiple works listed in References and Further Reading sections, not to mention various journalistic works. Besides, it's skewed priorities to demand deletion of this list while accepting as encyclopedic such lists as, List of students at South Park Elementary. Dl2000 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent point D12000 -- here are some other encyclopedic lists, List of Pok%C3%A9mon references or spoofs, Minor characters in 24 (and stop and think about this one. Fictional president David Palmer's children deserve to be listed, but Chelsea Clinton does not), List of historical cats, List of China Inland Mission missionaries in China, or how about List of BitTorrent RSS feeds.  Honestly -- if people are this concerned with non-notable lists -- let's start with some really grevious offenders and allow this list which, after all, has been the subject of numerous books and countless news articles.  I am really appalled that anyone could consider this list unencyclopedic.--JayHenry 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI think the problem is not whether or not the children of Presidents are individually notable. Obviously, many of them are.  The question is whether the group is a worthwhile collection of information as a group.  Many graduates of West Point are notable but a list of every graduate of West Point would be ridiculous, partly because of the number but also because so many of them are non-notable.  At the risk of repeating myself, the question is - "To whom would this list be useful?"  If, as User:Lquilter suggests, the group is of interest as a group then we should keep this list but then the article on Children of the Presidents of the United States should also be created.  --Richard 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are people who can use this information while researching U.S. Presidential history. Their children play a big part in their lives, some even effect their politics.  Franklin Pierce even mentioned his last of three sons to die in his inaugural.  His three sons may not be considered notable, but the event of Benjamin Pierce's death definately was.  The article also helps compare all the U.S. President's children all at one time; who is the oldest, how many are still alive, how many did each President have, etc.  It is useful to those who are obviously interested in this.  If you have no interest in Presidents or history it would be easy not to care and suggest to delete.  There are alot of "lists" here I would get rid of, but I know there might be a reason to keep them.  This article is very new and still needs work.  Not every article has to be useful to every person. It is definately useful to those who want to keep it. Jjmillerhistorian 12:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Article creation comment - A couple of people have now suggested that the list is appropriate if an existing article is there to support it. I initially preferred a single article, with text and an incorporated list, and I wrote two paragraphs at the top of the current list that could serve as a stub. But now I see perhaps the virtues of a separate article: One article could explain the sociological aspects of being a child of a political leader, placing it into context with inherited nobility, economic class, personal life outcomes, and so on; and there could be short sections that discuss any specific national effects, national political history, or other specific national research that have been done, which would link to the relevant supported lists (children of Canadian PMs, children of US presidents, and so on). (Heck, we could probably cannibalize some of the arguments on this page to flesh out the text.) --lquilter 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentEdward Baker Lincoln died at the age of three, nine years before his dad became a U.S. President, yet he is notable enough to have his own article as a child of a President. Then I'd say they all are notable enough.  The article creation idea by lquilter sounds excellent. Jjmillerhistorian 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, a very good idea. Without wishing to sound peverse, even those of them who went on to lead totally "normal" lives have an interest by virtue of doing just that. Johnbod 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Children of political leaders ? If it's a broader topic then "Children of US Presidents" and "Children of Canadian PMs" could redirect ? --lquilter 16:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the "Children of Presidents of the Philippines", if that hasn't been chopped already. Some interesting contrasts between the three I expect!  Johnbod 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they chopped it. At least the Canadian one survived.  Not enough people supported the Philippine list apparently.  All three lists deserve to stay. Jjmillerhistorian 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The List is relevant because it reflects important information about the Presidents. For example, alleged slave children such as Sally Hemmings's, say something important about the character of President Jefferson that is useful to historians and other researchers.  Children are relevant to understand the psyche of presidents.Swampyank 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that a number of the notability "voters" miss the point. Of course some presidential children aren't notable (though a few are even as children).  But this is a list covering a notable topic (as shown by sourcing) and may in fact help prevent the creation of stubs of non-notable presidential children, since they can have their bio-stubs here.  Eluchil404 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Subjects that we know generate curiosity and (limited but serious) historical interest should be kept in Wikipedia. Usefulness (as a record related to the serious historical interest) and Being Damn Interesting to, say, tens of millions of people should be standards of inclusion in Wikipedia. If that means we keep the Children of the presidents of Pakistan the world will not come to an end. At least not for a while. Noroton 14:25, 10 February 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.