Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Family of the United States

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 of the debate was slightly more in favour to keep than delete. A lot of the keep votes had alternate suggestions (keep with cleanup, keep or merge, etc.) but really we only debate keeping vs deleting. Improvements are up to the community. Ifnord 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Family of the United States

I'll be blunt. The article is redundant of Barbara and Jenna Bush, First Family, and Laura Bush, and not to mention, is unsourced as is. In addition, unless the author intends on writing a "First Family" article for Washington through Clinton, the article, as it stands now, is simply another Bush family article, making it redundant with Bush Family. I am not taking away from anybody's notability or anything like that, I am simply pointing out that this article is simply redundant with already existing, sourced articles. Jay(Reply) 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jay --Ruby 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely understand. I am writing the Clinton section of the article right now, actually. The article is NOT intended to be a Bush family chronicle; I am trying to compile data from ALL of the First Families. I hope you'll consider not deleting this article. Thank you. History21
Keep/Clean-up Should focus on the institution of the first family, significant acts of various members throughout history, not one specific first family. But the institution deserves an article. -AKMask 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there has to be something there, at least a disambig or redirect, fight out on the talk pages or make a request for comment. Kappa 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename: To be technically correct I think it should be First family of the United States of America but that's me. Oh! and keep the content. --CyclePat 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps even merge First Family to the new name. --CyclePat 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Common, it's redundant! ---J.Smith 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So next time a wikipedia user types in "First family of the United States" they should be invited to create a new article? Kappa 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to First Family. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Cut back on the biographical articles and just outline the members of the first family under a particular present with wikilinks as appropriate. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Clean-up Jim62sch 04:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Efforts better directed towards expanding existing articles than creating redundant ones.Schizombie 04:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutrality^talk 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include multiple first families, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but radically rewrite. This article should be about the concept of a First Family, what privileges they have, how they are protected, what legislation has been enacted around them etc. It should not be biographies of the current or former First Families (except maybe as a small section of "notable (incidents involving) First Families". But that is content dispute; this article is perfectly keepable as an article. Batmanand 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re-write, expand, and source! TVXPert 14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rewrite to reflect the institution, rather than the people. Natgoo 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per many other articles. Contains a lot of assertion and apparent editorialising, looks a lot like a POV fork. If kept, should be reduced to a one-sentence summary for each family with links to the main articles. Guy 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yay!!! It now appears as if this article will be kept, and of course I am very happy with that. For those who say it should be deleted, I can only state that the First Family of the United States has been a distinct institution for two centuries. Some First Families (in particular the Kennedys) had a significant inpact on the popular culture of the day. To those who support me in keeping the article, I must say that I agree with your assertions that more should be included about the security the First Family receives, the privileges they are privy to, etc. I would welcome inclusion of that within this article, because, frankly, I don't think I could cover it all on my own. However, I feel strongly that te biographical information as pertains to each First Family's time in the White House should STAY, and I will reinsert any biographical info that is unnecessarily deleted. The idea of a one-sentence summary of each First Family is a bit far-fetched. If people wanted mediocre knowledge on the topic, they wouldn't come to Wikipedia. We should be detailed. And for all the "editorialising" I have done, I feel that the article is very neutral. Based on my descriptions of two Republican and one Democratic First Family, can you really guess what my political views are? I note Clinton's infidelities and the Bush twins' binging in a purely factual manner. So, that is what I have to say, and I will check in here from time to time to see what everyone else thinks. Thank you. History21

Comment: If you continue to expand it the way you're doing (there's even a note on the page "NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE EXPANDED BY ITS ORIGINAL CREATOR." which I don't think is usual practice), it's going to be extremely long WP:SIZE. Not only is it redundant (duplicating material for people most or all of whom have their own entries on WP, none of which you've linked), it is internally redundant e.g. noting each person in a family "ceased to be First" whatever on a certain date. Schizombie 20:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have told you, I feel that this biographical information is important, and I intend to expand it because I know a good deal about it. However, I feel that others SHOULD come forward to help with more general information about the institution as a whole. I can, of course, research the Secret Service. Yes, yes, I'll do that. Alright, thank you all again. History21

Delete anything that needs to be said about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. Which needs completely rewriting by the way as is describes any country other than american as "foreign" which is a useless (and possibly offensive) term in an international encyclopædia. Jcuk 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What? It is a Brit, isn't it? And do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family? Honestly, the idea that the American First Family could simply be included in an article that describes the families of heads of state in general is itself rather funny. I mean, come on, I don't really think anyone is pretending that Cherie Blair yields the same kind of inflence as Laura Bush. The American First Family, whoever its members are at any given time, is the most powerful and influential family on Earth. Let me put it this way: if George W. Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. If Laura Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it. When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just illustrating a fact. I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married. And yet, EVERYONE knows about the American First Family. That's just the way it is. As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you? History21 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family?" ? no
"When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it." Who?
"As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you?" They have it. Bush Family. Anything else that needs saying about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. --Jcuk 10:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whoa, There. This article is not about the Bush family, it is about the First Family of the United States, an institution far more influential than any other similar body on the face of this planet. And who are you to redirect this article into First Family when voting on it has clearly not stopped? Far more people voted to keep than to redirect, and I am reposting this. Give me one good reason why the First Family of the United States doesn't deserve its own article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by History21 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2006.

Comment: I didn't, somebody called neutrality did. See my reasons above for why this article should be deleted. Jcuk 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it shouldn't have been redirected without this discussion being closed. History21 undid the redirect, and I've reverted it to the last most complete version prior to that redirect. The number of people voting to keep is not the sole basis of whether an article is deleted or not AFAIK. The main reason to delete it is that there are already articles covering some of the families and all of the individuals. Another lesser problem is a US-centric systemic bias overstating the importance of members of the "first family" beyond the President and First Lady. Another problem is length; if the article covers all the so-called "first families" as the intention was stated, it could grow to be about 40,000 words in length.Schizombie 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite completely. The information about the Bush family is redundant, and an article with this title should focus on the institution, not on specific families. One immediate step to improve this article would be to remove all but the first paragraph. Kusma (討論) 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and include information on all the other presidential families. Cut down info on Bush and Clinton families as it duplicates existing articles like Barbara and Jenna Bush etc. -- Astrokey44|talk 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article, as it presently stands, is repetitive of quite a few already well written, adequately sourced material on Wikipedia. From what I see now, in an attempt to have the article kept, the author is adding unsourced, inaccurate paragraphs every now and again to expand the article - not good news. A majority of keep votes are under "extensive rewrite" or "rewrite completely." I am not saying that an article of such a title should not exist, for the institution is rather important. I am just saying that as it stands now, the current article under the title "First Family of the United States," per all the delete votes and keep+rewrite votes needs to be scrapped, and rewritten from a much different approach. Deleting the article removes the histories, to prevent reversion - a rewritten article under the title "First Family of the United States" would have no need to be reverted to what currently sits under that name. --Jay(Reply) 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not possible to keep up to date and already covered in other articles. Stifle 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone knows about the First Family? Hoo-wee, this stinks of arrogance. Delete American foolishness. D e nni ☯ 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we going to totally delete the contents of this article and substitute something else in January 2009? Carlossuarez46 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we would just add a new section at the top. Kappa

Comment: We'll keep the anti-American nonsense to a minimum, shall we? While I'm sure that the hegemonic empire on your southern border causes you great pain, it is not my fault that our own officials carry more sway than your own, and acknowledging the fact is not "foolishness." Yes, the American First Family is known across the world. Is this really a surprise? Come now...think. History21 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just my guess, but I bet there's a significant percentage of Americans who don't know Mrs. Bush's first name, and I'd bet even money that at least half of Americans could not name the two (?) Bush juniors. Certainly, people around the world know there is a First Family, but beyond that, they are mostly blissfully ignorant. I'm not sure where your leap of interepretation came from that I was dismissing as foolish the fact that your officials carry more sway than ours. What I was dismissing as foolish was the statement that "everyone knows about the first family". Clearly, this is hubris. D e nni ☯ 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"*It is a Brit, isn't it?"
"*When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it."
"When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES."
"I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! "
"I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married."
"Hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum."
--Jcuk 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How's about using proper grammar? (Notice the apostrophe in "how's.") When referring to an American, we use capitals. Don't ruin a (I'll admit) fairly clever attack against me by using flawed punctuation. It just really, really upsets me, almost as much as the still silly assertion that the U.S. First Family does not merit its own article. By the way, I must commend you for using my own statements to demonstrate my "american [sic] nonsense," alluding of course to my own use of "anti-American nonsense." That was quick. Your astuteness however, does not make up for the fact that everything I said was true. Sorry. That it was true. For you, anyway. History21 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another thing that really grinds my nerves: "hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum [sic]." should clearly have a question mark on the end of it! Oy, vey! Periods, my dear British friend, mark the end of a statement, and question marks the end of either a direct or indirect question ("How's about doing this?" It's not exactly a command, more of a suggestion, if you can even call it that). Okay, I feel better now. I wonder if I would get in trouble for vandalizing posts by making them conform to English language standards? Hmm... History21 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where is Roosevelt, or a, the other 20 or so families? -QDJ

Comment: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Kappa 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Holy bonkers. I just typed that. Side note, how do you set up the link to your page and all? -QDJ

Comment:With four squiggles, like ~~~~. I've left a welcome message on your talk page which should clarify. Kappa 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The absence of material on all the "first families" is not a reason to delete it, IMO. However, adding the missing families would not make for a reason to keep it either. It's still redundant, something that hasn't been addressed yet. How do you write about a president's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that man or the one on President of the United States? How do you write about a first lady's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that woman or the one on First Lady of the United States? How do you write about the significance of other members of the family as members of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the articles on those people? A more valuable endeavor, IMO, would be to create articles for the redlinked "Non-spouse 'First Ladies'" and "White House hostesses" from the FLOTUS page. Schizombie 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no The First Family is a significant institution by itself. As a collective unit, it is more important than any royal family could ever hope to be. And regarding Denni's comment that many Americans aren't familiar with our own First Family; I feel that any American who didn't know the First Lady and First Daughters' names would have to be almost clinically retarded. People in this country may not be able to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but they're pretty well schooled on the members of the President's family. History21 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)History21[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.