Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prohibited degree of kinship


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn  non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Prohibited degree of kinship

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This doesn't appear notable (WP:N). Incest is notable, but I can't find any direct coverage of this as stated. Khin2718 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete If any sources were to be found, the information could be merged to Incest. As it stands now, delete and redirect to Incest. Wine Guy   Talk  10:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)  Delete !vote struck, looks fine in restored form.  Wine Guy   Talk  19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Article on Consanguinity and Incest already exists, no reason to have another one discussing the exact same thing. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Article expansion makes this vote void. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we should judge the article on the content that it had last week before the nominator pared it down to its current form .  Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The extensive coverage of this phrase and the legal implications of it mean that this is not by any means a deletion issue. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find any direct coverage of this phrase (as specified in WP:N) as an independent topic, only sources using it as a synonym for incest or containing trivial mentions in text. Khin2718 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, someone needs to find sources showing this is notable, not just a random phrase or redundant.Khin2718 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Revert and keep. Sources cited in text are sources.  You don't get to gut an article and then claim it should be deleted as unsourced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article to it's pre nominator form and then restored the AfD tag. I thought this the quickest way to do this. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article had been merged into incest and cousin marriage.Khin2718 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not the same as incest. I found the article a useful reference for some genealogy research that I was doing. I don't understand why people would claim that it's not notable. Bluewave (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you're ok. Polargeo (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Humor is one of those things you have to be careful with, a lesson I've learned the hard way over the years. Clearly, that comment was intended as a harmless joke, but I'd be pissed if it had been directed at me.  Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's useful is an argument we're supposed to avoid, unless you can find sources showing notability. Khin2718 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The term is also used in laws regarding nepotism. I've added this usage to the article (with ref.); there appears to be plenty of usage of the term in this sense . Wine Guy   Talk  20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be a saving argument. However, all should note that this page still needs major cleanup, including removal of the material merged into cousin marriage, incest and Affinity (canon law) and removal of false statements. More material on nepotism would be especially good, if anyone wants to make that contribution. 
 * The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination. Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn. ' Thanks, Khin2718 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This certainly needs to be expanded, but the concept is used in the law of Wills. I could find dozens of notable cases about the topic. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I expanded out a small set of examples regarding jury service, but I'm no expert.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see anything wrong with the original long version . Someone decided to just chop it up and merge bits into other articles, and do mass deleting.  Will the information moved to other articles remain there?  Or will someone there decide it isn't necessary?  Why isn't it valid to show what all the major religions and cultures of the world think of this?  And what does the jury selection policy of one state in one nation have to do with anything?  This article was originally about forbidden marriage.  Perhaps a new title would be appropriate for it.  Kinship is defined is "relationship" in the Webster online dictionary.  Prohibited degree of kinship could include homosexual relationships, which are prohibited in some religions and nations.  Listing that homosexual marriages are forbidden, would fit in the new article, but no reason to include that all homosexual activity is illegal, that a different article.  There may still be laws against mentally ill people marrying in some areas.  The article can be developed.   D r e a m Focus  08:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, prohibited kinship/relationship could involve the age of the victim. Just listing how it is forbidden to marry someone based on being a relative, having the same last name even if not related, age seen as too young in that society, homosexuality, or mental illness, would be a fine article.  And some religious people are banned from marrying anyone who has been excommunicated by their church.  Some might have laws against marrying someone from a different ethnic group(there is still some nations out there which are very racist).   D r e a m Focus  08:18, 14 January 2010 (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.