Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

List of famous families

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of loosely associated topics. A list that includes the Simpsons, the Bush family, the Osbournes, and Wyatt Earp's family has no encyclopedic value. Yes, they're all "famous families" but this is a bit like having a List of famous sons and putting Bart Simpson and George W. Bush on it. "Famous" is a subjective criteria as well. Categories already exists at Category:Business families and Category:Families by nationality and they make more sense than this list. Saikokira 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the term 'famous' is too subjective to be encyclopedic. I mean, I wouldn't list Wyatt Earp's family up there.   Pats Sox Princess  01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- proper and whole coverage would be impossible, too many people would be left out, would become controversial. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too subjective, not sufficiently encyclopedic. Iotha 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The inclusion criterion is too wide, making the list unmaintainable. Had they been more precise, like "List of important commercial families", or something, it would have been a different story.--Kylohk 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Now maybe a list of "famous crime families" "famous television families" or "famous political families" would be appropriate, but I think this is just asking for trouble as the inclusion standard is just too low. FrozenPurpleCube 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete way too much WP:OR in deciding inclusion. I dont think TV families would survive either per Articles for deletion/TV Single Dads (2nd nomination) Corpx 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if it looked anything like the Category:Fictional families but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to do it right. Especially since when you consider that families such as the Brady Bunch, the Cosbys, and the Simpsons have been identified as "America's favorite TV families" in numerous published works.  Or even internationally .  I think you might be presupposing too quickly. FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think categories generally follow a looser definition of "list of loosely associated topics".  A list, to me, would be a violation of that.   That article certainly gives (minor) credence to something like TV families, but I don't think it'd support just a list of them.   Just my $.02 Corpx 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence my suggestion that it look better than the category. Personally, I think that category is less useful than a constructed list would be.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Impossible to cover fully. Djmckee1  -  Talk - Sign  07:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and as list of internal links. Useight 08:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No, the criteria for inclusion is not strict or definite enough Recurring dreams 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball this. --Targeman 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft gone mad ... this article would run to hundreds of printed pages if only 5% complete. Blueboy96 20:44, 25 July 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.