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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 07:44Z

Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada[edit]

Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - Per reason of Otto4771 about AfD nomination of List of Philippine Presidents by parentage that just as with the List of Philippine Presidents by children heads of states' parents belong in the individual articles, not as a separate list and that the information appears to be in the various articles, so delete. Kevin Ray 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the most excellent reasoning of the nominator and the Otto fellow. Otto4711 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bertilvidet 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ensure that the information is recorded in the individual articles, then delete. -- saberwyn 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for biographical anthologies and for comparative purposes, pace such lists as List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship. Fishhead64 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reason to group these mainly non-notable individuals in one list. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I support the existence of lists of wives and offspring, but parents is a bit much. Is a list of grand-parents next? 23skidoo 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No objection to articles on any parents who may be notable in their own right, but there is no reason for a list of all the parents of all the PMs. This is not a genealogical database. Agent 86 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per comments in other AfD. It was extremeley tedious to find the parents of each Prime Minister for this article, so I can understand what a task it might be to research this for someone else. Having a handy article would be really nice. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a handy tool to find ancestry of all the Prime Ministers, it doesn't need to be deleted. It should be expanded with more links. It helps researchers discover more about their backgrounds Jjmillerhistorian 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There will be some people who would find this information useful, and it's silly to ask them to do the tedious work of reading 22 biographies when that work has already been done. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yet again, a useful index of articles- there's three linked here, and in particular Paul Martin's father is of indisputable notability. I wouldn't consider a delete of this aticle unless the other article it links to are deleted first. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article could also be merged with more geneological relationships, like above someone mentioned grandfathers of PM's. This would avoid any separate articles concerning "siblings of..." etc. Sometimes family members helped them become notable or vice versa. Jjmillerhistorian 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siblings would be an interesting article, but not as easily researchable. I believe there is a similar US page on this. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mean as a separate acticle, but information which could be added to this one. I'm not aware of an article on U.S. President's siblings, but there is one on geneological relationships which could add other notable relationships. This article seems limited. There is potential for more added to this. Jjmillerhistorian 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Arctic.gnome GreenJoe 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Like the children list, this is a relatively minor but useful reference list for a topic which is of research value. Again, the presence of a list doesn't require that every parent gets their own article regardless of their own independent notability. Keep. Bearcat 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Holistically, the list is certainly notable even if certain individuals are not. The family relationships of the powerful are always notable. The father of John Kennedy in the U.S. and Pierre Trudeau in Canada had much to do with the rise to power of their sons. Wassupwestcoast 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arctic gnome and further, parents of Prime Ministers are significant, a compiled list of all of them more so. KenWalker | Talk 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the other comments above. --YUL89YYZ 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is important information concerning Canadian Prime Ministers. Also with all do respect, Canada is a bigger global player than Philippines. SFrank85 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat & Wassupwestcoast. And also, if we have lists of their children lets do of their parents too. Why be be baised against one generation over another? It goes both ways. Mathmo ^Talk 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat and others. CJCurrie 08:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a tendency to not like a whole article that fits into a spreadsheet. I think that an encyclopedia should explain things and not just list them. While I feel that some people may find this list useful, I'm not sure if it is useful for Wikipedia. I can only imagine that anyone who needs to find a list of all the PM's parents is an elementary school student doing some busy-work and we'd just be helping them cheat. But then I suppose that these people are the grandparents of the children of the Prime Ministers of Canada as well... I think that I'd delete this article if it was my decision. But if I was an admin. counting heads, I'd call it a "weak delete"

--JGGardiner 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think your math is just a bit off ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, would this even be an issue if the article were Parents of the Presidents of the United States? Sixth Estate 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per discussions at the similar AFDs for children of presidents and prime-ministers. If people don't think any lists belong in wikipedia this isn't the place to argue it and certainly not the list to start with.--JayHenry 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that I wasn’t singled out but since I’m the only one who said anything close to that, I do wonder “people” means me. =) Just to clarify, I think that lists are fine when they index encyclopedic content but that they shouldn’t masquerade as such. Having looked through all of the list guidelines to be sure that my comment was not novel, I see no references to lists which do not index articles. In fact, it seems that only index lists are even considered at all. I’m somewhat new to lists so if someone can point me to guidelines which allow or discuss this sort of thing, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 08:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per children reasons and many above Johnbod 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who comes up with these strange topics?--Sefringle 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians, I expect. - Johnbod 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a reason to delete, I think there are many, much more stange topics in Wikipedia than this. Jjmillerhistorian 12:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for all the above resons, if nothing else this is of interest to those who are studing the "nature or nuture" of the coridors of power. An electronic encyclopedia can use not just tolerate articles that are useful in tying content together.cmacd 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fishhead64. - Jord 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bearcat, Fishhead64, JayHenry, et al. More historic and encyclopedic value than List of Star Trek planets, for example. Dl2000 03:29, 13 February 2007 (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.