Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booth family

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Booth family

The creator of this article responded to my prod at length, on his talk page. My original reasoning behind the prod was:

Wikipedia is not for genealogical entries. John Wilkes Booth is notable, his entire family is not.

There may also be WP:V and WP:OR problems. Another user had endorsed the prod and left a comment here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Junius Brutus Booth and Edwin Booth also have Wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure where the merge is most appropriate. The content is worthwhile and encyclopedic; this way of parsing it is not optimal. It also sorely needs reliable sources but they should be easy to locate. Xoloz 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge John Wilkes Booth may be the most notable now, but his father and brother were notable in their day, so that the least, it helps to have a disambig page. That said, this page does need to be cleaned up, and it is an orphan, so I'd say merge and delete. FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  You can't merge and delete. It violate GFDL. T REX_speak 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Sorry, but citing sources like that is not a good way to explain things. FrozenPurpleCube 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

T. Rex is correct. For GFDL purposes, if the content is merged, we must maintain the article's attribution history -- this is usually accomplished via redirect; "merge and delete" is impermissible. Xoloz 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then merge and redirect, or if you want, disambig. Doesn't bother me. FrozenPurpleCube 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Booth is already a disambiguation page with links to the notable Booths. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article based on the current content. I might reconsider if the article gets a complete rewrite during the AfD period to focus on the most famous members of the family. --Metropolitan90 18:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article did get a complete rewrite and now is in good shape. --Metropolitan90 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (author's comment) Perhaps this subject would sit easier in the Music and the Arts families. The problem here is that it was the assassination of Lincoln by the famous actor in his own right, John Wilkes Booth who saw himself as a combatant a few days after the close of the Civil War that effected the nation, AND the life of an emerging theatre tradition in America, which was put right by the assassin's brother, equally famous actor Edwin Booth with his actors club in New York. Members of this family were imprisoned at the time, and remained "infamous" for years. Individual family members could be in categories as diverse as "famous assassins" (John Wilkes), or "famous theatre dynasties" (Junius Brutus, Edwin), but that would be a black mark against one or the other. This article is my humble attempt to pull it together showing the dynamics and interactions between ALL the members of this family. And their much neglected historic family home Tudor Hall has just opened as a museum near Baltimore, which I've visited, where I'm sure they're trying to do the same thing. I'm the first to admit that the article needs to be fleshed out with references and external links, just a beginning, I was hoping that others might get involved. JohnClarknew 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Merge Looks like at least some information could be merged with John Wilkes Booth. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but only if cleaned up to focus on the notable members. A brief background is permissible but the point of the page should not be obscure silversmiths and they certainly should not be redlinked. As it is this is a rambling narrative that might go well in a family history but fails the encyclopedic test. Given that there are at least four notable members of this family, I think a genealogical page is appropriate instead of maintaining all these connections on the individual articles. Also related to the American Booths are Brits Anthony Booth and Cherie Blair. [1]--Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There, you see, I did not know that Blair is married to the daughter of a Booth descendant. And there's no way I could know, without a notable "family page", which holds all the keys to such links. Also, to continue this discussion, there are similarities to a still living family which I happen to know a bit about, the Redgrave family and they rate their own page. JohnClarknew 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known family. If this were 1860 instead of 2006, there would not even be a question about the notability of this family. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have already tried to clean it up a bit. I've deleted reference to the family pre Junius as not necessary. This family is not generational like the Redgraves, so does not qualify as a dynasty, and therefore a genealogical layout doesn't help. It is, simply, the story of a remarkable and tragical theatre family, its members giving people lots to think about, and explore further. JohnClarknew 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned up the article, stripping out all of the extraneous information such as the siblings who died young. Some of this information could be merged into the Junius article, but most of it is of no value in an encyclopedia. The article now wikilinks the important members and shows how the brothers and in-laws are related. --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge some info with Wilkes/Junius articles. There are only two members of the family presented in context of current article who are encyclopedically notable. If sources can be given to show that there other family members were high profile collectively from the arrests that were said to have happened, I'd probably vote keep though. Article as is needs lots of cleanup and is focussed on genealogy rather than significance of family Bwithh 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment you count two, I count three plus two spouses, all of whom already have Wikipedia articles. I think that's sufficient for a family page. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete (vote changed, see below) I was the user who endorsed the prod. I think I'm mostly in agreement with Bwithh's comment above: there aren't enough sources and citations to show that more than a couple of members of the family are notable. There's a reasonable chance those sources might exist, but as the article stands right now it's just a geneological listing of the questionably notable family of a definitely notable person, which as the original prod stated is not what Wikipedia is for. If notability citations for a couple other family members can be provided, I would definitely change my opinion. -- Shadowlynk 07:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • John Wilkes and Edwin are both major notable persons. Edwin was already one of the most famous actors in America before the assassination, so it isn't just that we know him because of his brother. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep As a matter of fact, this edit is exactly the kind of edit I was talking about. :) The article now focuses on notable members and what makes them notable instead of the family tree, and includes a citation of the Booth-Blair relationship. It could use some more citations I think, maybe a link about the family in general (For an idea of what I mean, I like the second paragraph of this National Park Service page), but I'm much more convinced this article is encyclopedic, or at least very close to it now. -- Shadowlynk 10:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I do think an encyclopedia should be factually correct. John Wilkes was not in the play. Also, the family was treated as an entity, and was punished, not just the notables. I don't think it was a tree at all. Any other voices out there? Join in. Two generations don't make a tree. Maybe a bush. JohnClarknew 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • So he was not, JohnClarknew. He had access because he knew the owner of the theatre. Sorry about that! But as noted above Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and I don't see justification for adding non-notable family members to this article. The children of Junius is something that belongs in that man's article. This is also not an article about the assassination, and insofar as any non-notable members were punished, that may fit better in the John Wilkes Booth article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per User:Zoe|(talk) , above. Smeelgova 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
• Our 5 days will soon be up. I want mainly to defend the title of the page, to retain "Booth family". There are some families, very few in fact, whose collective deeds are so unique and notable, that one wants to know more as an aid in understanding them. That's where genealogy becomes important. When investigating the conditions prevailing in the development of this family at different stages, the inclusion of dates becomes almost a sine qua non. For example, the guilt he must have felt abandoning his only son and his wife, what was the date? Later, he brought his father over to live with them, his father had abandoned his wife too. One of his daughters stayed home, a spinster, to take care of her mother. Then there were the deaths of 4 of his small children to smallpox and a local epidemic of cholera, could that have contributed to his alcoholism and dementia? He was a political radical, did his son John Wilkes feel compelled somehow to continue his father's radicalism after his father died, and murder our most famous President, let's see, that was thirteen years later? And what was the time frame after that when his brother was able to reverse society's condemnation of the family name and the profession of acting with his Players club? If there's precedent you want, there are other families which haven't given rise to these challenges; for example, if, as Dhartung says, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, why then the genealogically presented Bach family? He says Wikipedia is not for non-notables, then why was Irish immigrant not notable founder P.J. Kennedy important to the development of the Kennedy family? And why was the messy Barrymore family site not deleted? Others to compare might be The Midgley Family (who?), Rockefeller family (scores of non notables listed), Godrej family, Dupont family (fronted by Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours), and Jauch family. So, again, I urge the retention of at least the title of the subject Booth family. Dhartung has rewritten the page and deleted what he doesn't like, and he has a right to do this. But notice he has already come up with more links to the family name, WHICH IS WORKING BACKWARDS! If we can't lead off with the family name, we will have to provide more tidbits of information on each individual member's page, and leave it to the reader to connect the dots. Wikipedia is superior to other encyclopedias precisely because it is prepared to occasionally be a little provocative with unexpected accurate information in worthy situations, thus going a little further in aiding the student or researcher or writer in gaining a better understanding of the motivations of the members' actions. I can think of no other family with such built-in raging conflicts, finally resting in peace into eternity in a family gravesite, all of which makes them a very exciting subject. Please, let them be, don't cause them more rejection. JohnClarknew 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment JohnClarknew, you have to understand what Wikipedia is and is not. We are an encyclopedia. We are not a genealogical site, nor a place for family histories, nor of emotive narratives about children who died of cholera. What you seem to want is a psychological portrait of the family, which is fine in an article or a biography. It isn't appropriate here. Please also note that impassioned speeches are not what is needed in an Articles for Deletion debate; instead, you should be able to point to Wikipedia policy and how it is or is not satisfied. I'm glad you are excited by the subject, but you have to understand that what you write must fit here. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dhartung, having studied again several articles on what Wikipedia is and is not, I fail to conclude that it is "not a genealogical site" or "a place for family histories". To proclaim "We are an encyclopedia" states the obvious, and is not enlightening. I believe that, judging from what I read, Wikipedia policy is not fixed, and there are no absolutes, but it is designed to bring information to many levels of its readership in the best and clearest way, and I believe that to give the Booths an article entitled Booth Family, unquestionably a noteworthy family, will serve as a SUMMARIZING ARTICLE which best leads the reader to whichever sections they wish to study further. You do not address the question why The Midgley Family belongs and Booth Family does not, suggesting you have a double standard. This is a debate over whether to keep the article Booth Family. You have already rewritten the article (with an error which I had to correct) into the content which you feel is more appropriate. Now you've changed your mind, you want to delete the article altogether. I think you are wrong. Booth Family should exist as an entry page, and does conform to the site's standards. JohnClarknew 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reply JohnClarknew, you seem to be under the belief that I have argued for deletion of the article. I have not. I argued that it should be kept but rewritten under Wikipedia policy. It's hard to argue with someone who appears not to be reading what you say.

As I have stated above, we have developed guidelines (which are strong recommendations) and policies (which are firm rules). In AFD discussions arguing by example is counterproductive, because no other article is really under discussion. The question at hand is whether the existing article conforms to policy and reasonably fits within guidelines. Other articles that you cite could well be themeselves violations of either and their existence is not an argument that our policies are inconsistent. Please don't accuse me of having a double standard, especially since you have me on the wrong side of the fence. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK. 'Nuff said. Do we have a consensus? Who decides? JohnClarknew 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually admins close AfDs after a week. Normal users can occasionally close them when it's pretty much open-and-shut keep, but we had enough discussion and changed minds going here I don't think that applies. I'd still say it's likely a keep consensus, so we might as well just treat it as such and let the admins handle all the rubber stamping when they catch up the backlog. -- Shadowlynk 08:48, 23 October 2006 (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.