Deletion of Nephew and niece

Comment: Dictionary definition and . And worthless as a definition page, because it is internally contradictory. (For example, at one point it says that a nephew is the son of one's sister or brother; at another point it says son of a sister or brother or '''cousin''' - that's not a use of the term "nephew" I have ever seen. Also, the first paragraph contradicts itself about whether the son of one's sibling-in-law is really a nephew or not.) Completely unsourced. (Although the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is cited, virtually nothing in the article actually comes from that source; the rest is all riginal Research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:O)

Comment: There's no way this can evade . Arguments in favor that it has 'common-sense definitions' (again, ) or 'nobody reads Wiktionary' (neither relevant nor true) run contrary to policy. We already have plenty of articles that service understanding of the topic, and the bulleted list of terms has no apparent source (checking Wikisource, it's not from the 1911). Furthermore, it appears ''all'' of the sourced information, and some that's unsourced, has already been transwikied: see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nephew|1, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/niece|2, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nibling|3, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/step-nephew|4 et cetera. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC||WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: The article was based upon the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' and so the suggestion that it is not encyclopaedic is therefore counterfactual.  When one searches for other sources, as advised by our |deletion policy, one immediately finds other good sources such as ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TMme-90OYsUC&pg=PA193 The Primitive Family in Its Origin and Development''.  Please see our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:IMPERFECT)