Deletion of Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States (2nd nomination)

Comment: for what it's worth, yes, I think the topic is notable per  and , because the material within can be sourced well, and because it does not need OR to do so
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:GNG)

Comment: Unmaintainable list of mostly unsourced and unsourceable trivia and original research of no discernable notability and dubious encyclopedic value. My own extensive searches turned up nothing in the way of reliable sources that treat this topic as a coherent whole, and it is extremly unlikely that the bulk of the material can ever be properly verified, as it seems to have been cobbled together from very unreliable self-published sources created by non-experts. Most of the arguments for keeping this article in the last AfD boil down to ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:ITSINTERESTING||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

Comment: this is a perfect example of the dicta that "|AfD is not for cleanup" and "|please search online before coming to AfD".  The article has inconsistent, irregular, or missing citations, but that is no reason for deletion.  Every bit of information could, in theory, be |sourced well, mostly Legacy.com, Peerage books, Snopes.com, Ancestry.com, periodicals, Presidential biographies, etc.   Our core readership -- students -- will certainly want to find this information and the citations therein right here on our Project. |Consensus does not change that quickly since the last AFD only eight months ago; even my mother's pregnancy lasted longer than that.  The Community decided that it was notable less than  a year ago.  My standard for CCC is thus: if you would be laughed out of family court for re-litigating a settled child support or child custody issue, then you should not try to argue an AFD so soon.  I can only think of one AfD that was re-nominated so soon, and ''only because'' Jimbo Wales got involved in that one.  Now, I'd love to trim out the NN relationships (19th cousins and the like
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Cleanup (WP:CLEANUP||WP:BEFORE||WP:RS||WP:CCC)

Comment: If'' there are plenty of good sources, then where are they?  Practically the only cited information is in the 'Presidents related to royalty' section. This article has had various maintenance templates, some for over a year, with no appreciable improvement in the various cited issues since the templates were placed on the article (notwithstanding possible  concerns with all the unsourced assertions about living people
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)