Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry family (chocolate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Withdrawn by Nominator, the quality of the article threw me when I first saw it. It'd probably look better cleaned up, and seems to pass WP:N and WP:V without trouble. Burzmali 19:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fry family (chocolate)
Article is a genealogy of the Fry family. The relevant information is largely on J. S. Fry & Sons already, so I don't think a merge is warranted, but if anyone wants to save any of the information, I recommend placing it on that page. Burzmali 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Many of the notable Frys whose family and marriage relationships are indicated on this page were not employed in chocolate manufacture, for instance, Edward Fry and Mariabella Hodgkin and their children. The proposed merging would not be appropriate for them.
The Frys intermarried with other notable Quaker families, such as the Pease Family. Articles, such as this, help disentangle the complex network of relationships, where a name is frequently re-cycled for several generations of children.
The role of the Fry family in the transition of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) during the latter part of the 19th Century and the period up to 1920 has not yet been included in this article but can be found in Kennedy, Thomas Cummings British Quakerism 1860-1920: the transformation of a religious community Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0198270356.
BTW, I think Elizabeth Fry's husband was a relation of the Bristol Frys but haven't found the reference yet. Vernon White . . . Talk 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep article has overlap, but is completely distinct - one is the family, the other is a company. It would be worth fixing up the family one to be better formatted, and perhaps to focus less on the chocolate, to cover the whole very notable Quaker family. I expect that people over at the relevant WikiProject will willing to help - I would be but am rather busy recently. SamBC(talk) 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article is very badly written, and needs a lot of work to clean it up, but that is not a reason for deletion. The family is clearly notable. I'd like to help improve the article, but don't have much spare time available at the moment. NSH001 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, how is the family itself notable? Yes it had many notable members, but that alone doesn't make the family notable. A reference focusing on the notability of the family as a while would go a long way to convince me. Burzmali 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's not a reference, but ask any Quaker (especially a British Quaker) and they'll tell you... there must be a reference somewhere. They're one of the "big Quaker families", along with the Rowntrees, the Cadburys, and the Ransomes (that being at least one big Quaker family that wasn't involved in chocolate). I don't have the time right now to find it, but it'll be out there. SamBC(talk) 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, how is the family itself notable? Yes it had many notable members, but that alone doesn't make the family notable. A reference focusing on the notability of the family as a while would go a long way to convince me. Burzmali 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 13 September 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.
