Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arquette family (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arquette family

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The same reasons to delete exist as the last time this page was nominated over a decade ago; the family itself is non-notable outside of having multiple members who are notable. The article contains no information about the family that cannot be found on each individual's page, and the article at present contains so little information that I suspect almost all information can be found on every one of their pages. There exist no suitable sources that I could find that would meet even the barest notability requirements for this article. The page exists as nothing more than a directory, and it hasn't even the complexity of the Barrymores or the Coppolas to merit keeping for the tree alone (the list of now–ex-partners is hardly even meritous enough to keep itself, let alone enough as reason to keep the article).

I suspect that the previous "keep" verdict was the result of a different era's attitude toward Wikipedia, with a fear of losing directories, lists and pages that feel notable. While once a valid attitude—most notable pages had a meager start after all—this page has had plenty long enough to have been expanded by any source at all, and has sat all but empty the whole time. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this article survived a deletion attempt in 2007 is an attestation to how totally non-existent notability standards were done. There is no sourcing here to show these people are notable as a group or add up to creating a notable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert. Notability standards were much different back in 2007. Time has passed since then, and under the current notability rules this family is not notable. Its members are notable individually, but that's it. There is a huwiki version of this, but that's just a plain family tree with no other text whatsoever. I nominated that to deletion as well. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced family trees. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article essentially functions as an unreferenced list of individual family members, and there are not enough notable family members for this to be a useful list. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems better suited as a template.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:13, 14 September 2020 (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.