Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon family


 * 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. There is no consensus for deletion. Pruning is an editorial decision best further discussed on the article's talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Solomon family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is essentially a family tree with no focus on notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Looking at the edit history, this has clearly been a labour of love by one editor over the past 7+ years, and the dedication and level of research is commendable: but it's simply not what Wikipedia is for. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This information is helpful for people looking into history in terms of a specific family as an example, but being useful doesn't by itself guarantee a topic's worth as a page on Wikipedia. It's frustrating given that this is clearly a better written article than a lot of the nonsense that we typically see, but deletion is totally the right call. As stated above, notability doesn't really exist here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Solomon family was active in South Australian politics, law and society, many members notable within that context, but the value of this article lies in resolving confusion regarding members (and non-members) of the family with identical or similar names (eg. the Vabien/Vaiben Solomons, Moss/Moses Solomons and Judah Moss Solomons), and the relationship between notable members where significant intra-family marriages took place. I'd say Keep, but then I would, as its principal editor. Doug butler (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep but am not sure if I have the standing as an editor to do so. I came to say that maybe it could be moved to Wikiversity, where it'd be acceptable as a research resource. Additionally, the various members of the family could be added to Wikidata, and their relationships modelled that way. Sam Wilson 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if pruned right back to those items that can be linked to other wikipedia articles. Such would provide important context and of a type of context often hard to find in wikipedia.  See WP:LINK, for example Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for WP:NOTGENEALOGY but also that there is a distinct lack of notability of this family and most of the ancestors and descendants. Ajf773 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but significantly prune. I think this article should only focus on the members who are notable and have articles (e.g. Judah Moss Solomon, Vaiben Louis Solomon, Elias Solomon, Sophia Solomon, Emanuel Solomon, Emanuel Cohen, Vaiben Solomon, Lance Vaiben Solomon and the two Boas brothers). Everything else should go, and particularly the "unrelated but connected" section(!) Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and prune (as per Deus et lex but stronger on the keep). The Solomon family are absolutely a historically notable family in Australian politics and business - but this article hides that by burying the bunch of notable people in hordes of non-notable family tree. Not for the first time, this author's interest in geneaological research around notable people does not work very well for Wikipedia - that doesn't mean his core topics aren't notable. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are legit so is notability.  just needs to be pruned.Grmike (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Well made and sourced, and is interconnected and with enough notable members to warrant the page. But it really needs to remove the descendants that lack notability, even at the cost of possible mix-ups with names. Edigodiuss (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments I find it interesting that most of the keep advocates also indicate that a significant prune of this article is required. What does that say about the article? Also, how many family articles on Wikipedia are about some notable family members for unrelated things?  Meaning, the family articles I've seen are about a family notable for being a political dynasty or running a company, significant to a specific geographic area, etc.  Maybe there is a common thread here in the article, but it is not in the lead or even the entries themselves.  I see some politicians, an early childhood educator, and there are some blue links but this article doesn't even say why the person is notable! CutOffTies (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Keep - there is an interesting more general discussion to be had here. Clearly we do have family tree articles, and in some of them, there may be the occasional non-independently notable individual. However, this appears to have gone well beyond that. A graphical family tree showing them might be viable, but this is not. Bluntly I'm not sure how best to go trimming, but it still appears to be a "cleanup, not deletion" instance, and it's hardly a TNT case. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (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.