Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States political families


 * 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. John254 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

List of United States political families

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List of United States political families which doesn't define WP:N or WP:V,List_of_United_States_political_families,List_of_United_States_political_families,List_of_United_States_political_families are a few examples of familys which don't pass WP:N in this context Gnevin (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would argue that a family is notable if its members are notable. Even if families need their notability independently established, the fact that a few whose notability hasn't been established exist on this list is not reason to delete it.  Political families are an important subject and many are highly notable.  Other problems with the page, especially its excessive length, can be dealt with.--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Somebody needs to do a massive overhaul of the article, that's for sure (just because two people in a family did something vaguely political doesn't make it a political family). However, a handful of political families have played a major role in US history and are clearly notable.  The Kennedy, the Bushes, the Daleys, the Tafts, the Lodges, the Adams Family to name a few (although the Adams family entry needs to be seriously culled; e.g. the fact that Henry Cabot Lodge is the brother-in-law of the grandson of John Quincy Adams doesn't really make him an Adams, in my opinion).  Still, I think that it can be an important article and certainly meets notability, even if elements of its content don't. JEB90 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question How does the author of this article specifically define "Political Family"? Is it any family that had more than 1 notable politician? I don't have much problem with the article outside of wikipedia defining terms and categorizing on it's own without proper sourcing. If the Kennedy's are a political family, does that mean the children/spouses that were not in politics are part of the political family definition? Is Maria Shriver part of the Kennedy political family, or is Arnold Schwarzenegger? ... many concerns with definition. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up - and I see here that the author is in fact defining Schwarzenegger as being part of the Kennedy political family. He may not define himself as such, nor may many others. I think this is a serious problem with this list, in that it is hard to define such a thing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Uh, there has been far more than one "author" of this article, as the edit history clearly indicates. In any event, the list used to have a scope that required at least two members at the level of Congress or state Governor (I believe). Generally it takes the place of having a separate "Smith family" article for every time a son succeeded his father in Congress. I don't see the objection to including Schwarzenegger in the list of people in the Kennedy family (he is often counted as such in media discussions of the family, and if you really object I could find some for you -- probably hundreds). I think it is much less subjective to list based on simple criteria such as lineage and marriage rather than which families and members are "significant to U.S. history" -- something that doesn't seem to have ever been the intent of this list. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not that I am objecting to his in inclusion, it is that I am posing the question of who is creating the definition for this list? I admit it is hardly a controversial topic, but I become wary of wikipedia becoming a defining source. When I say "the author", I am just using an admittedly not-so-great term for "the specific editor who added x". Do you have sources that say Schwarzengger is in the Kennedys, or rather connected to the Kennedys. Note I am only using him as notable example and trying to gain a greater understanding here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, putting on my historian hat, it has often been the case that in-laws have inherited political mantles. In the specific case of Arnie, he made his own way, but even back in the 1980s there was speculation that he married Maria with an eye to a political future. I'd rather not parse "in" vs. "connected"; he is legally married to a direct descendant of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the acknowledged patriarch, so whatever the difference between your two terms is, I'm not sure it's relevant. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep We've got plenty of articles on prominent families on Wikipedia that are considered notable: if their political members are the reason for their notability, why can't we list them? Keep the list good, but no reason to delete.  Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep A list of notable people (as shown by their WP articles) is also notable, and notable enough to be kept.  Improve the article by providing alphabetic sectionalization.  Hmains (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And what of WP:V, not one reference and how as Gwynand says is a political family defined?Gnevin (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'comment''' Strange that the external referenece documents just that. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clean it up. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep needs to be cleaned up and shortened considerably. Establishing that more than two people are needed for a 'political family' to be relevant might be a good start.  Great examples of poltical families are the Bushes, the kennedys the Tafts, the Humphreys, and so on.  However, it is useful as a list and the members of the list are notable (or their notability can be independently disputed).Protonk (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: agree, needs clean up but should be retained. Should it be broken into sections, like last names starting A-K, L-Z? I also think that confining it to families with at least 3 members would be good. A family with just two seems to be easy enough to figure out just by linking those two articles together. Awbeal (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (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.