Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry family (chocolate) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Tone 20:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Fry family (chocolate)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please see Articles for deletion/Fry family that has just closed as a Delete. This version was AFD'd in 2007 with only three Keep ivotes and no Delete ivotes. I refer to this as a "version" as it is just a reworking of the family genealogy article that has just been deleted. The difference is a small unsourced three-sentence section about chocolate. One of the three sentences is not about chocolate, but about the type-setting foundry mentioned in its own following small section.

Just as it was in 2007, sourcing in this article is not pertinent to the chocolate business, but more of the genealogy sourcing. Comments were made then, that it needed a lot of work. In the ensuing 13 years, nothing substantive seems to have been done. Why keep this around, if there is no effort to make it viable to Wikipedia standards? — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Maile  (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Maile  (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Maile  (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I will note the family is also heavily involved in Bristol and Quaker affairs as well as being involved in the chocolate business (with four generations of people called Joseph Fry). At a minimum the Religious Society of Friends project should also be notified. --Erp (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominator is absolutely correct: this kind of mostly primary genealogy sourcing does not establish notability for a family., nothing is relevant until it is noted by secondary sources, and those sources will have to make the case for really the family as a whole, a few generations, not just one person. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yep, the usual 2007-era keep close, with sentiments about how the article would surely pass muster just as soon as someone sourced it. Failed the GNG then, fails the GNG now.  Enough is enough.   Ravenswing      11:51, 9 August 2020 (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.