Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

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. --

Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

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

Seems like a completely useless and unencyclopedic list:

• Delete per nom: unencyclopaedic, notability concerns. Also see
  Folantin 13:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom Hut 8.5 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems we have tons of lists about US presidents, but when it comes to lists about Canadian Prime Ministers we must delete? Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with having a list of children of Canadian Prime Ministers. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopǣdic. However Earl Andrew does have a perfectly valid point.....p'raps we should start sorting the garbage out as far as US presidents are concerned. Jcuk 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I see nothing wrong with either list. There are people out there who have an interest in Presidents and Prime Ministers and would like lists of Prime Ministers based on these things. For instance, we have tons of articles on members of the royal family and its lineage, because there is a tremendous interest in the royal family. For instance, the World Almanac has a many sorts of lists of Presidents, including one that lists the spouses and number of children. Surely we can include a similar list on Wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia is not paper, while the Almanac is! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just because some people would find it useful is no rationale for keeping, see
      Deletion! 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Then by all means slap an AfD on

      List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Since you nominated this one, I would be most interested to see that puppy fly. Fishhead64 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

      ]

    • Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering, if there is a real Moreschi family out there, I am not part of that family. Don't want to lead the fuckwits at Wikipedia Review down any blind alleys. Just using that as an example, though what I said about my grandfather is perfectly true.
      Deletion! 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep. I think it is a useful and interesting list. --YUL89YYZ 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not a rationale for keeping, see
  Deletion! 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, although I often defend lists (seemingly hated by AFD regulars), I see no rationale for grouping these individuals. Merge if necessary to notable parent's article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft.
  Review Me!) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for all the same reasons the the Philippino children list should be deleted. I'm very much enjoying these AfDs because at least one person responds to each of them by suggesting another list that's every bit as egregious, and that list ends up nominated. Keep it up! Otto4711 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no need for a list of mostly non-notable individuals. Anyone who is interested in the children of any given Prime Minister (or President, for that matter) can look in on that specific Prime Minister's article. Resolute 02:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - various issues:
  • Families of heads of state by their nature attract significant attention and are in normal practice featured in various non-trivial published journalistic and historic works. Therefore children of Prime Ministers automatically inherit some degree of notability;
  • The list also provides an at-a-glance view of the families, which would otherwise have to be tediously researched by hitting every PM's article on the WP server;
  • The list is less prone to cruft than most - Prime Ministers and their families don't change extremely often;
  • List of Children of the Presidents of the United States
    is tolerated;
  • So are plenty of other kinds of lists on less important subjects.

Dl2000 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Fishhead64 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The list is useful. The scions of power are always notable.Wassupwestcoast 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Some people will be interested in this, so we may as well save them the effort of reading every PM's bio. Also, if the US Presidents' kids list is worthy of being kept, than so is this. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dl2000. encyclopedic, a useful and interesting comparison that i doubt would be easy to find elsewhere. it's certainly not doing any harm. --Someones life 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The information on this page is neither random nor dubious, and it is certainly not "indiscriminate". CJCurrie 03:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All of you saying "keep" on the basis of the US Presidents' children list do understand that that list has never been nominated for deletion, right? I hope you also understand that the existence of one article is not an excuse for the existence of another. The question is not whether some article exists; the question is whether this article should exist. Otto4711 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suppose the issue is whether the list is useful or not. Insofar as it compiles a list of the children of a highly notable category of people - the heads of government of Canada - it saves time and effort scrolling through all twenty-two names to retrieve this specific item. There are thirteen lists related to the persons of the Prime Minister of Canada. There is no reason to suppose one is any more (or less) notable than another. Such lists are ubiquitous for heads of government for various countries. My question is whether or not the criteria for retention or deletion is random. Are the children of Canadian PM's any more or less notable than those of the United States? Is the category of children any more or less notable than the
  birthplace of the PMs? My concern is that deleting this article creates a slippery slope for a mass deletion of lists that many people who are, for instance, compiling bibliographal anthologies, find useful. In the absence of clear criteria, deleting this article is random and gratuitous. Fishhead64 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. The issue is not whether the list is useful or not. See

WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Response: Regrettably, WP guidelines always point to what it is not, not to what it is. Regardless, usefulness is a valid arguement, because it suggests something will be used - see

WP:9W for a useful refutation of your suggestion. Usefulness is precisely the issue. Fishhead64 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. Actually, per

WP:9W: "Compilation. Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts." I see nothing in WP:9W that states just because something is useful means it should get an article. The phrase "to ensure that the resulting articles are as useful" states that articles must be useful, not the converse that useful stuff be articles. Shrumster 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Response: I agree - cruft like

spouses of deputy government leaders. My argument is not that because these exist, so too should Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, my argument is that this list is useful in terms of it being used by Canadians, which is the criteria you cite, while others are considerably less so. Fishhead64 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, good luck trying to delete the list of children of US Presidents. The reason why there is no AfD is because it would have no chance of actually being deleted. There are enough American Presidential trivia-buffs to vote to keep it. Now you may put it on AfD, but I warn you now it would be a colossal waste of time. Not to mention the fact that is actually highly encyclopedic in content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD isn't a vote, so it doesn't matter how many "trivia buffs" turn up to say "keep". If they don't make arguments based on Wikipedia deletion policy, the admin will simply ignore them. Worth bearing in mind in this debate too. --

Folantin 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Fishhead64. GreenJoe 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It would be very difficult for the casual researcher to gather this information from individual articles; it would be undesirable and inadequate to do it through categories; and this is the sort of research issue that an encyclopedia of political biographies might well be expected to have. --lquilter 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. And why would the casual researcher be interested in a random collection of prime minister's families? See
  WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The casual user who is looking things up about political biographies. For instance, a 12 year old trying to find out information for a report about political families. "Compare and contrast" is one of the things kids are taught; this list would be helpful for them. Or for example, someone in college doing a paper in sociology about political families, power, and democracy; could easily work through the list of children of PMs / presidents, note the ones who are notable & the ones who are not; find out a bit of info on the ones who are not. These are "casual researchers". These people are disproportionately notable, in some part because they often are part of political families or with inherited wealth; and the fact that some of them end up being not notable is what makes a list useful -- because it will gather the folks who have wp pages and the folks who don't. --lquilter 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Once more, I point you towards
  WP:USEFUL. Shrumster 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have read WP:USEFUL, thank you. You asked for some examples of what "casual research" might look like, and I provided them. Pointing me to WP:USEFUL is conclusory; you're saying that this is merely useful rather than encyclopedic, but you're not giving an explanation of why it's not encyclopedic. I've pointed out (below) that this very topic is a subject of academic research; hence a potential topic for casual research. ... As for how a kid might write a report, the list is an index; it serves as a sorting & collecting function. A kid trying to decide which families to write about could look through the list (repeat: it's an index), make some basic assessments about which families look interesting, and then move onto the individual president, first lady, and children articles as appropriate. Please see
  WP:CLS which explains in greater detail the organizational function of lists in wikipedia. --lquilter 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Wikipedia is not an index, a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Per
  WP:NOT#DIR, "Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles". Shrumster 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I didn't say that Wikipedia is an index; I said that the list fulfills an indexing function within Wikipedia. Your point about
  WP:NOT#DIR does not support your argument, as a list is, in fact, an "article" which would "mention" less well-known people. --lquilter 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For all those who are quoting WP:USEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT may also want to read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Per that, then does this list improve Wikipedia? I say no. Shrumster 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I say yes. Why? For all the reasons people have mentioned. It's a great resource for people needing information on the chilren of Prime Ministers. Encyclopedias are about providing information to people, and this does just that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Until/Unless we create a separate Wiki-Almanac stuff like this belongs here. It's of valid Almanac interest as families of world leaders have significance at certain functions or funerals.--T. Anthony 07:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. They are "significant" at functions/funerals concerning their own families, that's about it. Almanacs are called almanacs and not encyclopedias for a reason. Shrumster 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the contents of {{
  List of United States Vice Presidents by time in office anyone? Carcharoth 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Relation to notable people is not an indicator of notability. A list of non-notable people is not any more notable than they are as individual articles. Wikipedia has a lot of inappropriate lists with notable people as it is, no need for one filled with people whose claim to fame is solely relation to people of office. Shrumster 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just as valid and encyclopedic as a listing of "first ladies" (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is). 23skidoo 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In many countries, "first lady" is a official/semi-official position. "First ladies" usually have done significant things that make them notable by themselves, regardless of their relation to their husbands (that they got to do those things by being related to their husbands is irrelevant, what they did usually makes them notable by themselves). "First children" on the other hand, do not warrant their own articles just by being "first children". George W. Bush is notable because of his time as a president/governor, not because he is the son of George H. W. Bush. Shrumster 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: This is what I mean about randomness and gratuitousness. You've just finished arguing that individuals should stand or fall on their own merits, not on their relationship to a notable person. Now you're defending a list for spouses of presidents of the United States, even though - despite what you claim - it is not an official or semi-official position (unless you are prepared to cite the enabling legislation). Fishhead64 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. List of spouses of presidents of the United States? Where did I mention that? That country is not the only one that uses the term, "First Lady" you know. :) BTW, that's exactly what I said. Most (if not all) First Ladies are notable because of actions they themselves performed, and not just because they were related to heads of state. I highly doubt that you could say the same about children. For example, the last two on the list in question are most likely 11 and 8 years old. I doubt they've done enough to fulful WP:BIO standards. Shrumster 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: First point taken. As I said, the consistency of your argument would be that relationships do not establish notability. The article about
  Tricia Nixon done lately? Fishhead64 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• His access to governor/43-ness stems in large part from his proximity to 41, so I think it's a bit difficult to separate the two -- and in fact shows what children of presidents / PMs share that is in common. --lquilter 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [1] has links which will source the entries so the list is verifiable. Deleting this while keeping the corresponding US list will only contribute to systematic bias. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good reference, I'm sure many of them were more notable then the ones who wish this to be deleted realize. How many notable Canadian Prime Ministers can you name of the top of your head? Me? About four. Just because the whole world doesn't care together doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is excellent info, whether big or small, for someone who wants to learn Canadian history. As long as it is accurate it should be kept as well as expanded. Jjmillerhistorian 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - speaking of systemic bias, I would note that the topic of children of US presidents has been studied in historical and sociological literature. (Hence suggesting that the kind of topic is relevant.) --lquilter 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles on these people would be a bit much, but the list is quite useful. - SimonP 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful index for other articles, and many PMs' children are indeed notable- several have been MPs, public speakers, filmmakers, etc. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list is useful for reference. Media references, biographies, etc. could all use this. Homagetocatalonia 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dl2000. Mathmo ^Talk 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lquilter and others above Johnbod 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dl2000. Jord 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I can understand the argument that it's not hugely encyclopedic, it is a useful reference list on something that is of interest and research value to some people. I certainly don't think that every child of a Canadian PM would deserve their own separate article — but a straight list is completely harmless, and as anyone can see, the only names that are currently wikilinked are those who are independently notable in their own right in addition to their status as children of PMs. And as has been wisely pointed out, it's not overly prone to needless expansion since it's a list with very specific and tightly defined parameters that isn't really subject to change all that often. Keep. Bearcat 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with the nominator; I see nothing being said in defense of this article that goes beyond it being "useful" or "interesting". Many useful, interesting things are not encyclopedic. To me this is more a specialized genealogy directory or something that belongs in the (literally) parent article. For those individuals who have achieved some sort of notability in their own right, beyond what their parents have done, having a separate article is enough. Agent 86 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the relationship is itself notable, an article on the individual should only spring up if the individual should in turn become notable, which seems to be the case on over 1/3 of those named here. Someone who is exposed to the public eye in their formative years is probaly more likly to end up in the public eye leter in life. cmacd 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This list of Canadian Prime Minister's children is important, not just in terms of names, but in terms of Canadian politics. SFrank85 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this important? Why? To whom? Agent 86 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you don't like it, Agent 86, doesn't mean it isn't important. Lists like this are hard to find on the internet. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia I don't think are important, but there is no reason for them to be deleted over opinion. I just don't view pages I don't care about. The page just needs more detail with information on the missing PMs. They probably didn't have kids like King. Being a child of a PM or a president of any country can put one in the spotlight which makes this list important. See all the 'Keeps'? Jjmillerhistorian 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comments have no basis in whether or not I like the article or not. I think it's fair to ask someone to substantiate a bald assertion that something is "important". Just saying it is does not make it so, just as the number of "keeps" (or "deletes") does not make something encyclopedic (or not). Sidestepping the question does not make it any less a relevant one to be answered. Agent 86 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can easily see myself finding this list useful as a quick reference. Off the top of my head, I might wonder how many other PMs had young children while in power like Stephen Harper does. This list would let me find out. It seems silly to make me read 22 biographies to answer those kind of simple questions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada is sufficient.--Vsion 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A category based on parentage is a bad idea; if you read the CFDs you would see that this is wrong; not because it's not notable, but because categories are overused and non-navigable unless strictly controlled. But if you think the fact of parentage is notable enough for a category, then you should think a list would be okay. A category is nothing more than a list: an automatically-generated, alphabetical list, without annotation or reference. --lquilter 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of PMs. They play an important part in the life of the PM. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and "who's that girl?" Being a child of a PM or any world leader is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete move this information back onto the subject's page and waste this list. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable Avi 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Again, if children of government leaders are non-notable, why do such lists exist? I assume, for the sake of consistency, you'll be voting "delete" on

  List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. Fishhead64 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep and Comment It appears that nobody here or at the AFD for Children of US Presidents has even bothered to read
  Wikipedia:NOT#Indiscriminate
  . For those arguing deletion on the grounds of indiscriminate consider that these are the categories that "Indiscriminate" includes:

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
2. Travel guides.
3. Memorials.
4. Instruction manuals.
5. Internet guides.
6. Textbooks and annotated texts.
7. Plot summaries.
8. Lyrics databases.

Which of these categories does a list of the children of some of the most important people in the world possibly fall under? Is Chelsea Clinton a song lyric? Is Michel Chrétien some sort of travel guide? Please read a Wikipedia policy before using it to justify a deletion, instead of assuming that the policy sorta probably applies.--JayHenry 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The meaning of "indiscriminate information" is not limited to the things on that numbered list. You hit it on the head with "children of." A list of the people themselves would not be indiscriminate information. However, a list of their children is, per
  JChap2007 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm referring specifically to wikipedia's policy —
    notable topics, not to mention easily verifiable. Per the policies of wikipedia, this isn't even a close call.--JayHenry 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You seem to be confused on the interpretation of that policy. It says that "indiscriminate information" includes the things on that list, not that it includes and is limited too the items on the list. The list is merely exemplary, not an exhaustive listing, of what is considered indiscriminate information. It has not been esablished that most of these people are indeed notable; most do not have their own articles. However, even if they were, that doesn't necessarily support collecting them in a list. I
      JChap2007 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. The collection of this information into a single article is indiscriminate. -- Alan McBeth 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I believe that every article on a US President (or Canadian Prime Minister) should list that person's family (spouse and children). If the children are notable in their own right, then they should get an article. However, this list has no justification for existence. --Richard 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Incorporating by reference all my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Children of the Presidents of the United States, excepting only the cites to US-specific articles. Suggest that where US-specific cites exist, Canadian-specific work is also a likely study of subject, but would be less likely to actually have published work. I append the last proposal for convenience. --lquilter 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article creation comment - A couple of people have now suggested that the (US) list is appropriate if an existing article is there to support it. I initially preferred a single article, with text and an incorporated list, and I wrote two paragraphs at the top of the current list that could serve as a stub. But now I see perhaps the virtues of a separate article: One article could explain the sociological aspects of being a child of a political leader, placing it into context with inherited nobility, economic class, personal life outcomes, and so on; and there could be short sections that discuss any specific national effects, national political history, or other specific national research that have been done, which would link to the relevant supported lists (children of Canadian PMs, children of US presidents, and so on). (Heck, we could probably cannibalize some of the arguments on this page to flesh out the text.) --lquilter 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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.