Muhlach family: That is not allowed on Wikipedia.  The short lead section of the article makes this claim more prominent.  There are no previous revisions of the article that do not have a genealogy, making it more likely to be deleted.  This article was made by: User:Carl Francis ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) who was already targeted by 2 proposed deletions of his/her articles, that being Ejercito family and Gutierrez family .  For the exact same reasons noted above, the following articles have also been nominated for deletion (they are also made by User:Carl Francis ): Cruz family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Eigenmann family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ejercito family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Gutierrez family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Laurel family (Philippines) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Padilla family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Sotto family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) I can consider the following options for all of the articles: Merge these articles into whatever appropriate page applies to the family, such as Aga Muhlach for Muhlach family .  This might not make any sense, because not all members of the Cruz/Eigenmann/Ejercito/Gutierrez/Laurel/Muhlach/Padilla/Sotto family are notable.  Delete these articles altogether.  This is what I would choose.  Keep these articles and remove the genealogical content.  Keep these articles and expand them while keeping the genealogical content (see WP:NOTGENEALOGY ).  Any other option as decided by participants of this AfD.  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not sure it was the best idea to bundle all of these articles together into one AFD.  Each article has to be assessed individually, so there may not be "Delete All" or "Merge All" opinions being offered unless these articles are very similar to each other.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I decided to bundle these 8 articles into this AfD because they are all made by User:Carl Francis , and they all follow the same structure: A short lead section, e.g. "XYZ family is a family of entertainers."  A "List of members" section that contains a genealogy of the family, e.g.: Father XYZ ∞ married Mother XYZ Son XYZ Daughter XYZ Sometimes a "See also" section, though there is not much to see there.  A "References" section that contains references for the genealogy, not for the family itself.  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 08:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Laurel family is one of the more important political dynasties in the Philippines , having produced a president, vice president, several senators, representatives and other local officials.  The Sotto family, is sort of the same, being the first senatorial political dynasty.  The Padillas are mostly local officials, but in multiple places.  The "acting" families can go, but the political families?  Not so fast.  Bad idea to bundle these.  Withdraw your nom.  Howard the Duck ( talk ) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 8 articles that are bundled here are really, just genealogies.  There is nothing else that explains the families, it primarily focuses on the family tree.  Look at their "References" sections, it is just references used to build the family tree, a.k.a. genealogy.  As I said before, that is not allowed on Wikipedia.  Think again.  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject of the articles, the Laurel family and Sotto family are WP:N ; the Padillas, somewhat less so.  We are debating if the subjects of the articles are notable.  AFD is not clean-up.  This news article discusses the Sotto family.  This news article even discusses the Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986 debates if the anti-dynasty provision in the then being-drafted constitution should apply to the Laurels, saying that the Laurels were in government even during the Emilio Aguinaldo days.  Other WP:RS discuss the Laurels even in the Spanish colonial era.  Think again.  Howard the Duck ( talk ) 03:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the broad concept of "Laurel family" may be notable does NOT mean the article should be kept as-is.  Just because AFD is not cleanup does NOT mean that we cannot recommend a TNT or redirect here to allow a start-over that actually addresses any significance of the dynasty.  If the page is now nothing but a genealogy with a family tree including non-notable members, it can be excluded if reconfigured, but that's no reason to derail the discussion when that's duplicative to the List of political families in the Philippines page.  Reywas92 Talk 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect all When the article is nothing but a genealogy, I don't believe an article is appropriate.  The Sottos, Padillas, and Laurels can be redirected to List of political families in the Philippines#Laurel family — Batangas , List of political families in the Philippines#Padilla family — Bulacan and Camarines Norte , and List of political families in the Philippines#Sotto family — Cebu, Quezon City, Parañaque and Pasig , where officeholding/notable members are already listed, without prejudice against recreation with actually substantive content and sources.  Reywas92 Talk 21:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Close per Wikipedia:TRAINWRECK .  Let's revisit each article's AfD in its own merit.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I sure agree with you. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 04:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ummmm.... so close it? Howard the Duck ( talk ) 05:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried to unbundle the 7 other articles in this AfD but they were quickly reverted. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 05:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Liz : is it possible to unbundle this nomination to make an Afd for each article? I think nom is fine with separate the AfD for each article. Currently, I think this AfD bundle is a trainwreck and we won't reach a good consensus. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seconding this, I vote for close per Lenticel because we need to evaluate the merits (or lack of it) of each article on its own.  --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 05:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since there are no Delete opinions, this AFD can be closed if EJPPhilippines states that they withdrawing their nomination.  You can either state that here at the bottom or under your nomination statement.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am withdrawing my nomination.  I will try to renominate the 8 articles separately.  EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ 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.

Discussion outcome: keep