Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nephew and niece

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. While no strong consensus exists, the standing rule has been to keep such family relationship articles. Until the consensus clearly changes, such an article must be kept. It is a ugly stub that needs work, but that is not the purpose of AfD. It only needs to be encyclopedic to survive, which it is. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nephew and niece

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of dictionary definitions. Georgia guy (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the "article" deals with different types of nieces and nephews, none of which is very encyclopediac. It should be redirected to cousin, extended family, or just family. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was based upon the Encyclopaedia Britannica and so the suggestion that it is not encyclopaedic is therefore counterfactual. When one searches for other sources, as advised by our deletion policy, one immediately finds other good sources such as The Primitive Family in Its Origin and Development. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A most excellent article, especially for people who come from different cultures who may not understand Anglo familial relation terms. I can't think of the name of the culture right now, but there are some cultures where they do not have a separate word for son and nephew, as their culture considers all offspring of their siblings as their own. —CodeHydro 15:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move. The definition of nephew and niece belong in either the Wiktionairy, where some of the definitions would be an addition or in an article on genealogy where some of the definitions might also be an addition. I do agree with CodeHydro that a distinction is usefull, especially to those from other cultures who might wish to reference this in Wikipedia. In Dutch for example there is no difference between a cousin and a nephew. Cousins are called nephews or nieces, regardless of degrees of separation. --JHvW (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' No one reads wikionary, never has, and never will. Keep as a Wikipedia article. This is mentioned in a print encyclopedia, so no reason why Wikipedia wouldn't have it. Dream Focus 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful article with no question of notability. --Korruski (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LiteralKa (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unobjectionable, and mostly has common-sense definitions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup that's all. Loads of sources out there discussing this. Aiken (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^gossip 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and redirect. There's no way this can evade WP:NOTDIC. Arguments in favor that it has 'common-sense definitions' (again, WP:NOTDIC) or 'nobody reads Wiktionary' (neither relevant nor true) run contrary to policy. We already have plenty of articles that service understanding of the topic, and the bulleted list of terms has no apparent source (checking Wikisource, it's not from the 1911). Furthermore, it appears all of the sourced information, and some that's unsourced, has already been transwikied: see [1], [2], [3], [4] et cetera. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CodeHydro above. - Hydroxonium (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition and WP:OR. And worthless as a definition page, because it is internally contradictory. (For example, at one point it says that a nephew is the son of one's sister or brother; at another point it says son of a sister or brother or cousin - that's not a use of the term "nephew" I have ever seen. Also, the first paragraph contradicts itself about whether the son of one's sibling-in-law is really a nephew or not.) Completely unsourced. (Although the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is cited, virtually nothing in the article actually comes from that source; the rest is all WP:Original Research). --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MelanieN. Dictionary terms, no reason to be here. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not to have an article about such a notable and common topic would mean Wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia. We should really have an article about any topic in one of the major paper 'pedias, like Britannica. People yelling NOTDICT aren't helping advance Wikipedia, nor have they been looking up sources about nieces and nephews in families. Articles can and should be improved, not deleted simply because everyone is too lazy to go and make it less of a dictionary definition than it is now. —fetch ·comms 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Fetchcomms, this is a very common topic and is included in paper encyclopedias. I think the article needs a rewrite, and better sources need to be found, but I think it is a important topic. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.