Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chocolate Trinity


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chocolate Trinity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Term used during a lecture to describe 3 chocolate manufacturers. 650l2520 08:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: neologism, with no signs of notability (lack of independent reliable sources). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely no need for an article here; non-notable and neo as above. – Alex43223T 09:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I hope that this article an be retained and developed. John Sentamu is a notable live WP article and John of York frequently refers to The Chocolate Trinity in talks. There are articles on the three Quaker philanthopists referred to and significant academic and popular studies of the influence of them and their relations. Two of the Brands they gave their names to are still household worlds. The confectionery industry is a major part of the food sector of the Market. The charitable ventures that they founded are still in action and doing valued work. It is to be expected that the Quaker wikiproject will develop further links to this article in due course.=== Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Vernon, you know I'd love to agree with you, and I'd love it if the subject of this article were suitable, but I'm not sure that it is. I could only support its inclusion if it were in more widespread, documented use. Is there potential to transwiki? I don't know what inclusion criteria wiktionary uses. SamBC 13:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is it that youall have so many Userboxes? Try reading John of York's lecture notes.===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable neologism. Oli Filth 10:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete 'The Chocolate Trinity' (and 'The Trinity of Chocolate') is a phrase used by John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, in a lecture in Sept 2006 when speaking of Cadbury, Rowntree and Fry. The lecture itself is not about so called 'The Chocolate Trinity'. The phrase is not widely used in this context and even on the Diocese of York website only appears in one article, a transcription of the lecture. It is a neologism, a newly coined phrase, it is not widely used and it does not have significant coverage. Cadbury, Rowntree, Fry and Sentamu are notable people in their own right and of course have their own articles. The phrase and context would be best located in these articles imo. --Malcolmxl5 12:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Oli Filth - Cyborg Ninja 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet any of the requirements for notability (not even close). It's an interesting phrase, and could be mentioned in the relevant articles (Sentamu, Cadbury, Rowntree, Fry, possibly Quaker history, etc), but can't justify an article on its own. As a member of the Quaker wikiproject, I would rather spend my limited time on the many Quaker-related articles that badly need improvement, rather than waste my time trying to rescue this one. --NSH001 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism Paul Carpenter 07:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sense of the Meeting is delete. Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Author can mention the information in an article about the history of chocolate manufacturing in Britain, if there is one; and on Wikipedia, there probably is one.  Chocolate Trinity sounds like a horrible idea for an alternative to the Chocolate Easter bunny Mandsford 14:09, 1 August 2007 (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.