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. There is consensus that there is an encyclopedic topic that meets our criteria to cover here. There is also consensus that it needs to be reformed (limiting it to first cousins being the most popular suggestion) however that is beyond the scope of AfD and may be done as normal article improvement/discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of coupled cousins[edit]

List of coupled cousins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An enormous amount of people in history have married their cousins, its not worth listing people after. This list doesn't even stick to first cousins, when we go to stuff like fourth and fifth cousins it could likely include about half of humanity before the modern travel. ★Trekker (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - whole swaths of it are unreferenced WP:SYNTH (and close to half of the references aren't sources, just set-off further explanations). WP:NOTEVERYTHING and in particular WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Even in the cases where it is documented, it is like having 'List of people with blood type O+' - a list based on a characteristic that in most human cultures over time has been entirely non-noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP but reform. A list of coupled cousins is of sociological and psychological interest. People, after all, become involved with persons they know, and it may be of interest why a fair number of notable persons have preferred involvement with a more or less close relative. For many cases involving royalty and aristocracy, where a principal consideration may be merely the consolidation of political power, I would set up a separate list of "coupled royal and aristocrat cousins", with provision for discussion of appropriate notability criteria for inclusion. And, of course, all retained couples, whether commoner or aristocrat, should be documented with reliable sources. Nihil novi (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not notable as a list, its just a collection of geneology cruft. A list like this completly fails to cover anything noteworthy at all about the history of the subject. Cousin marriage is alredy a far better overview of this as are Cousin marriage in the Middle East and Cousin marriage law in the United States.★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Nihil that some sort of list would be appropriate (but not this one). First I would restrict it to first cousins and to formal relationships (marriage, civil union/partnership). I live in a country where cousin marriage is no big deal but I see the US has got itself into a considerable tangle: Cousin marriage#United States and Cousin marriage law in the United States so the matter is certainly noteworthy. The thought of same-sex marriages crosses my mind but I'll let that pass. So, we should keep the article and let the talk page be used to sort out scope and, probably, article title. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how a list is helpful. The topic of cousin marriage can be far better covered in actual prose articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry you don't find it helpful – I would find it more helpful if it were pruned but kept in list form. But there we are. Thincat (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • • I just can't see how a list like this would teach people about the controversy over cousin marriage better than a prose article would. Like I said below, thousands upon thousands of people would be on this list even if only kept to first cousins, and it was not a noteworthy part of 99% of these peoples lives, so why list them after that aspect?★Trekker (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a bit of an odd one, but I agree with the above two editors, may be this could be changed to first cousins, which is more notable. First cousing marriage is a big deal in some countries, and not looked well upon. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First cousin marriage is a big deal in some places yes, I don't see how a list of random people trought history depicts that well. It would be better to create Cousin marriage in ____ to cover that instead. Even if only a list of first cousins it would become unmanageably long.★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily "unmanageably long", if it is kept to notable persons. The article's "Notable people" section, containing some very notable and interesting persons, even after all these years is of modest length. Nihil novi (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would only be kept to notable people. It will still be unmanageably long. The only reason its "modest" as of now is that's it's laughably incomplete. In a lot of human history marrying your first cousin was not noteworty and most of these people never had it commented on during their lifetime, it's not good to list people after something which was not a defining part of their notability.★Trekker (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looking up "List of people..." and "List of persons..." on Wikipedia yields dozens of lists, many of which seem of less moment than our "List of coupled cousins". Nihil novi (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an incredibly poor idea when dealing with AFDs.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NLIST Creating other lists as suggested by Treker is also a good idea. If this list focusses on notable persons, the list is worth keeping. Wm335td (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not suggest creating other lists, I want prose articles. Also, just because a list lists notable people it doesn't mean its ok, famous people get listed after dumb little details of their lives all the time, List of Chevrolet Corvette owners was a thing that once existed.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Yeah, having a lists of owners of a particular car model was a bad idea too, whose time has now gone. The message of this long list is that this degree of consanguinity was either unremarkable or was a weak enough taboo to be easily defied, or was even expected practice among certain elites. All this says, "not notable." Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete considering that we are including third cousins this is just absurd. If it was limited to actual first counsins it might almost be worth noting, but even a very avid tracer of family history like myself has no clue who their third cousins are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (renamed) but heavily purge. Cousin marriage is not all that unusual, though slightly frowned upon. This list should be limited to First cousin marriages. Indeed in parts of south Asia cousin marriage may even be the norm, aimed at preventing the fragmentation of family property. The Catholic church formerly sought to prevent consanguinity within the fourth degree, meaning that royalty frequently had to ask for a dispensation to marry. This should not however be used as the basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see why a list is helpful. Since it is the norm in some places listing those people is just pointless, and if it is taboo then an article with prose is better to cover the subject.★Trekker (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder whether, by that reasoning, it is necessary to record winning sports teams, since it is obvious that someone generally wins, and who cares which those teams are? Nihil novi (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a laughable comparison. Marrying is something the vast majority of adult human beings in history were expected do, only a small minority of all people have ever been part of a professional sport. And again, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't help this page.★Trekker (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not merely the infinitesimal minority that play sports professionally who are interested in who wins – but the millions who watch them play. Nihil novi (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure how you think that helps your case here but ok. If anything it makes your case weaker, I doubt a list of people who married their cousins is remotly as interesting to even a fraction of a milion people as sports is to millions.★Trekker (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough to get coverage for this, as well as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for other things, makes it a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but ONLY close relations, maybe just first cousins. "Alphonso Taft and his fourth cousin twice removed" is ridiculous. Also remove "romantically coupled". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just an observation, but I think there is a general leaning to keep, as long as the page is restricted to first cousins, otherwise the pages's covereage is sort of infintite and not very meaningful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have reviewed the last 4 years' activity on List of coupled cousins since 10 September 2016. I found that virtually all the activity during that period was in the "Royalty in Europe" section. This confirms two of my impressions: that the "Notable people" section has not become excessively long and shows little prospect of becoming so; and that the article would definitely become more manageable – and, I believe, more interesting – as a whole If the massive "royalty" and "aristocracy" sections were spun off as their own articles. Nihil novi (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP but reform - I don't feel strongly either way, but I definitely do not have an argument for keeping the article the way it is. If the article is to be kept, I fully support posting some strict inclusion criteria, such as only including marriages between first cousins (as Thincat suggested) and that a listing must have a citation. I think it would then be appropriate to retitle as First cousin marriages as Peterkingiron suggested. Those all seem like reasonable criteria, which would call for purging parts of this list that make it too long. If keeping this list, I would support moving the royalty and aristocracy lists into (a) separate list(s) (as Nihil novi suggested) referenced in this one. Having said all that, I'm not a strong opponent to deleting this article either, given the limited appeal to basic curiosity and historic interest it offers. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I agree with the nominator that this is not notable or helpful as a list. This is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. The leap from cousin marriage being a notable topic which is appropriate for an article to List of coupled cousins (which includes multiple instances of "sixth cousins once removed", one instance of "eighth cousin thrice removed", and one instance of "tenth cousin once removed") being appropriate is kind of like saying that because climate of London is a valid article, so is list of rainy days in London. Some people above have argued that it should be kept but changed to such an extent that it would basically be unrecognizable compared to its current form. To that I say that even if consensus determines that we should have some kind of heavily modified version of this list, WP:TNT applies and it should still be deleted. TompaDompa (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Articles are expected to be imperfect, and AfD is not cleanup. Nihil novi (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: It appears that the greatest exception is taken to this list article's "royalty" and "aristocracy" sections. Therefore, improvements being allowed during "article for deletion" discussions, I propose within the next few days to improve this article by deleting those objectionable sections. Should any among the largely (at least, within the last 4 years) nameless, numbered editors who have worked on them wish to set those sections up as a separate article or articles, they are, so far as I am concerned, welcome to do so.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Reform make it a list of a notable, royal and aristocratic individuals who married their first, or maybe even second, cousins. List individuals who married their "fourth cousin twice removed" or "sixth cousin" seems absurd. --Richiepip (talk) 18:13, 13 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.