Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadbury family

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 keep. There is consensus that the subject - the Cadbury family - is notable though the article needs work. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-encyclopedic article, inconsistently sourced and simply an indiscriminate, trivial list which is essentially a family tree. Some of the family members listed have Wikipedia articles and some of whom do not. In other words, just cruft. As such, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in and of itself. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but prune off the unarticled branches, as appears to be the norm in other family articles. The family is notable:

• "Great dynasties of the world: The Cadburys", The Guardian
• The Cadbury Family, Sky History Clarityfiend (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I concur that this article has critical flaws, and needs to be transformed into prose, but it is unquestionable that the Cadbury's are one of the most famous and notable families in modern English history. Curbon7 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an article but definitely not in the current state. While I agree with the nomination sentiment that this is not an ideal article in its current format, I think as a family, there will be sufficient history to write prose about as suggested by Curbon7. The family tree element could probably be formatted into a much smaller visual configuration. I don't quite think we're in a WP:TNT state, but rather it needs reinventing, which is achievable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Family is quite obviously notable enough to meet WP:GNG, being a household name. Tk4y06 15:31, 28th September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - I would agree that as it stands this does not make a good Wikipedia article and a great deal of work is needed. However as others have said the Cadburys are a very notable family and it is logical for their to be an article on them. So I think improve is the better option than delete. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The Cadbury Family is one of the most famous family's in Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markwhite2828 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The Cadbury family are renowned as chocolate makers and for using the profits of this for philanthropy. Though this is essentially only a genealogy, it is a little more useful that the usual dabpage which would be called Cadbury (surname). The number of blue-links in the article speaks for itself. Th is kind of list article is best for not being overloaded with detail and references, the place for which is on the articles on the individuals and their company. I have not met any of the family, but know people who do. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clear case of notability although the article needs some cleanup. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 13:30, 3 October 2022 (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.