Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon 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 keep. Cleaning/pruning, which is generally supported, can and should be discussed on the article talk page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon 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)

Probably the most blatant violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY I've seen on enwiki. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but significantly prune - this was raised in May this year and the arguments haven't changed, the nominator needs to ensure they read previous AfDs before trying again. The family is notable and the article is worth keeping, it just needs cleaning up. A significant number of the persons mentioned in this article are notable (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). The rest of the article can be pruned, particularly the "unrelated but connected" section. Deus et lex (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Prominent family in South Australian history - the colony was founded in 1836, and Emanuel Solomon arrived the following year, and along with other family members, played important roles in business and civic affairs. Bahudhara (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the family interesting not only for the many members who had historical significance in the young colony (and several who are given brief outlines have the potential for interesting articles) but also for the intra-family marriages and the minefield of deceptively similar names, which has proved useful (to this contributor at least) in clearing up several misunderstood relationships. Doug butler (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a family tree and is not focused on notability. The notable members have their own articles. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - CutOffTies, family articles are permissible on Wikipedia, and in this case the family itself is notable. I agree the article needs a significant cleanup (which isn't a matter for AfD) but there is enough there (and enough notable members with their own articles) for a standalone article on the family. Deus et lex (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Reply to Deus et lex The family articles I've seen are about a family with a common thread of notability for being a political dynasty or running a company, etc. In addition to the common thread, the vast majority, if not all the people in other family articles are notable on their own. 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. The lead does not even attempt to assert why this family is notable other than stating that individual members achieved notability (which is highly questionable, given how many individual entries do not make a claim of notability). The keep but prune argument fails. The article as it is now has no direction, and the editor(s) are mistaking Wikipedia for ancestry.com --CutOffTies (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my view is that your argument is not correct. The family is notable for their political dynasty alone, let alone the other notable members. I think everyone accepts the article needs cleanup, but there is no justification to delete the article. It's perfectly salvageable, and in fact editors seem to be cleaning it up already. AfD is not cleanup. Deus et lex (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe use one of the many genealogy sites instead of Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there does not seem to be any valid reason for deleting this article. The proposer has clearly misunderstood WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The latter says: "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." The notable topic is the family, and the family history is being presented for the approved purpose. Yes, the article could be improved.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toddy1: - Except this isn't supporting the reader's knowledge of the topic. Stating that members of a family were prominent in literature, and how they influenced each other (such as Tolkien family) is valid. Listing everbody's fourth cousin in family tree style is cruft. And we have so much of this List of United States political families (F) and it's kinfolk. Maybe there could be a reasonable thing written about how this family was prominent in Australia, but the genealogical table is just an unreadable mess. We're not ancestry wiki. This is to the WP:TNT point. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument though is based on the state of the article. AfD is not cleanup. As we have been trying to say the family is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the family itself is notable, why is there no claim in the lead, or in the entire article? Some individuals being notable does not mean there should be a family article. CutOffTies (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune. There are enough notable people (with articles) in the family to merit retention, but it lists a lot of people whole are wholly NN and who do not link those who are notable. This is a much more substantial article than many of the family articles I have recently seen. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify the notables and remove the dross which makes up most of the "article". Perhaps something like Windeyer family (Australia). WWGB (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article certainly needs work, but the subject is notable and there appears to be WP:RS to support additional content that would make this more than what it is now. WP:ATD seems appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 18:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NLIST This list aides our readers in finding this information. Focussed and narrow list. Wm335td (talk) 02:16, 21 August 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.