Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with multiple marriages


 * 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 d e lete. The keep arguments have little merit. east. 718 at 02:23, 11/5/2007

List of people with multiple marriages

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT and WP:NOT of loosely associated people. Are Yoko Ono and Muhammad Ali closely associated just because they have both been married four times? No. The intro states that these people are "notable for four or more marriages", but most of these people aren't notable for their multiple marriages (and the "notability" of their marriages can't be measured in an encyclopedic way). Arbritrary cut-off point as well. Create a Category:Multiple marriages or something, for the few genuinely notable ones, but this list is just celebrity trivia. Masaruemoto 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly an INTERESTING article that doesn't contribute anything to encyclopedic human knowledge. If the oft-repeated claim that "half of all marriages end in divorce" is true, then half of all people who've ever been married could theoretically be on a list like this, without the arbitrary inclusion criterion of four. szyslak  09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Quite an interesting read but I think the divorce rate, especially among celebrities, is just too common to be a maintainable list. Spellcast 11:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - and no category either. Indiscriminate collection of loosely associated people. Otto4711 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- too vast a list to maintain Thunderwing 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, though we can still be friends. Although it is interesting, I can't think of any reason to keep this, since it is pure triva, and Wikipedia's policy on that is unambiguous.  Sadly, I can't even see what this could be merged to.  There is a difference between what the "knowledge sought by the inquiring mind", and "what enquiring minds want to know".  Celebrity marriages and divorces are only "notable" because of a press that tells us that it's chic to keep track of such things, and that's covered in the celebrity articles.  Multiple marriages are a curiosity, but not notable.  Mandsford 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We have lists of top 10 and top 100 as arbitrary cutoff points, and the ranking of the richest people have a cutoff point too. The top person in the list is not a celebrity, and by including people with Wikipedia articles, it limits the list. We also categorize people by the year they were born and the colleges they attended, again that doesn't define them either, or connect two people. It was newsworth enough for that notorious tabloid, The New York Times in "75, He Takes a 26th Wife.", New York Times, January 30, 1984. “Glynn Scotty Wolfe, who is 75, married for the 26th time Saturday at a wedding chapel on the Las Vegas Strip. Wearing a black tuxedo and an ear-to-ear smile, Mr. Wolfe walked out of the chapel with his bride, 38-year-old Christine Camacho, the oldest of his brides." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is someone with four marriages much more notable than someone with three marriages? (Four is the list's cutoff point.) Yes, a lot of articles have "arbitrary" cutoff points, but your argument amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And yes, Glen Scotty Wolfe is just notable enough for a New York Times article, but there's already an article about him, so that doesn't make a list necessary. szyslak  01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What crap did I refer to? The richest people? I don't think it is crap, and I don't think that you really think it is crap either. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS involves invoking a dodgey article, The richest people article has a long history on Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not depend on the quality of the article to which the nominated article is compared. Otto4711 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard Arthur Norton, why are you ruleslawyering over an Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions shortcut? szyslak  07:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but with the cut-off point raised to 6+ marriages -- 4 or 5 isn't quite special enough, but 6 would keep in Henry VIII whose six wives are arguably his main claim to fame (and, vice versa, who is the most public face of serial marriages). Admittedly, I may be coming at this from a bit of an I-Like-It angle, because I'm presently fascinated by all sorts of Bluebeard and Bluebeard-like stories; but I do think 6-29 marriages is something worth recording.  Would more citations showing these people as notable because of their multiple marriages -- as we have for Glynn Scotty Wolfe and Wook Kundur -- be any help? --Zeborah 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was going to make the exact same suggestion as Zeborah, but with 5 being the 'here and up' marker. I'd also say limit it to people are notable enough to be on wikipedia, or who were married to a list of whom are at least half notable (linkable in Wikipedia, at least) to provide some limitations around a large list-subject. --Thespian 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing any less arbitrary about seeting the cutoff at 5 or 6 than there is in setting it at 4, and these two comments demonstarte with crystal clarity that there can never be a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion. Otto4711 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Zeborah and Thespian. No opininon on the cut-off point, but I'd like to see marriages that have importance in themselves, like the Habsburg dynastical shennagigans, if the all the other parties are non-notable. This list discriminates historical persons in the favour of celebrities. --victor falk 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I usually apply WP:NOT to the extreme, but this list has (IMO) some WP:INTERESTING information that is WP:USEFUL to thousands of housewifes who have nothing better to do than read the yellow press all day (not that there's anything wrong with that). This list seems pretty well maintained; just add some sources and maybe lose the "ranks" and increase the cut off point to 6. This is a case where WP:Ignore all rules may apply. – sgeureka t•c 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT. A cat would be fine for this information. Doctorfluffy 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly sourced, possible WP:BLP violation, anyways thousands of people would likely qualify for this list, and having multiple marriages isn't a claim of notabilty for almost every single one. Perfect example of WP:LISTCRUFT This is a Secret account 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and discussions. Clearly this would include name person articles that exist.  So it in no way indicates any kind of a unique event. It is in fact a normal situation.  Vegaswikian 04:32, 4 November 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.