Deletion of Obama family (2nd nomination)

Comment: first of all, clearly notable per  and . There is significant coverage about this subject in hundreds, probably thousands, of reliable sources.  In substance this is a subject serious people want to read about in order to improve their understanding of the world - they take note, here, via publications, and off Wiki.  That meets the substantive criterion of notability.    Second this nomination and other nomination discussions of Barack Obama's family member articles have an inescapable POV problem.  Some people clearly do intend to either suppress information about Obama because they don't like the candidate, or because they do like the candidate and see the African ancestry and Muslim faith of some of his family as potentially embarrassing.  They have said so directly, evidenced this via a pattern of edit histories, or said this in the negative, accusing the material of being a POV problem / coatrack they want to correct.  But even discounting the motivations, systematic and persistent deletion of information about the candidate's family background has a POV effect whether intended or not.  It suppresses information about Africa, race, and multiculturalism, and perpetuates the fact of Americans denying and hiding the less urbane side of their diverse identities.  Third, the information here is the result of a "merge" result from other AfDs.  There is no other logical place to put the material that would not result in a similar article so the outcome of a delete would best be to re-create the child articles, which would lead to a procedural Snafu.  We really should get over this nonsense and stop attempting to delete important encyclopedic content from the project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: The current article has 19 references, and there are several independent articles that are proposed to merge in with dozens of additional references.  Almost all of these references are from articles major news outlets covering Obama's family (CNN, ABC, Newsweek, and many others).  So, based on  we have 1) "significant coverage" in the form of several dozen articles 2) from "reliable sources," specifically a wide variety of respected news outlets 3) which are clearly "independent of the subject."   It meets all the criteria.  Now, there would be some justification for removing some of the individual entries which do not contain any detail (or perhaps condensing them into a few sentences by category).  And the family tree image is too wide to fit in the browser, it doesn't seem that breaking the page layout is appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Doing a http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS252&q=%22Obama+Family+Tree%22 Google on "Obama Family Tree" produces 9,540 entries for '''that exact phrase'''.  The overriding rule '''''' is '''If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.'''  The article as written provides a great and very useful family tree diagram. It will be a very useful dumping ground when lesser Obamas.  Rarely do we see a topic up for deletion with that many Google pages.  The debate is not whether we think the Obamas are notable but whether third parties consider them notable and it's clear thousands of people consider them notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: this '''family''' is not notable. This article is a  at best; it exists as a place to showcase the fact that Barack Obama has a family, but does not assert or demonstrate notability of any member of that family. Those few who are actually notable (and some who probably aren't) already have articles. (The Kennedys, Rockefellers, Bushes, etc. are notable because they have many notable members who do or did notable things
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The mixed successes and failures of AfD's on various individual family members make this issue muddled.  The somewhat hyperbolic and un- comments on both sides don't help either.  However, it appears that the individual family members will be a mixture of notable and non-notable individually, but there ''is'' enough independent interest in Barack Obama's close-ish family as a whole to merit an article (using  style where appropriate for members with independent articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL||WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: Many editors have made the argument that notability for this article has been established because many of the subjects have been mentioned in multiple |reliable sources.  However, this returns to my original point that |notability is not inherited.  Yes, there are multiple reliable sources, but none of these involve anyone doing anything notable on their own, they are always  in the context of how it relates to the notable Barack Obama.  By way of example, there have been literally thousands of articles written in the last week about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie|Angelina Jolie's newborn twins, but there is a reason that we do not have an article about them on Wikipedia.  They are not inherently notable and haven't done anything to make themselves notable other than be born in the same family as notable people. Likewise, most of the subjects of this article are not inherently notable and those that are already have extensive articles written about them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ITSA)

Comment: Obama is very popular and many people are interested in his family background. The article passes , and it is well sourced. It is important to have a separate article because it will help people who want to know specifically about his family background
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Any thought of putting any details like these in Barack's page is ill-conceived.  His page already has several |subpages
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)