Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith family (Sierra Leone)

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smith family (Sierra Leone)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although members of the family may be relevant, the family itself is not notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An obviously very notable family, just because they are African doesn’t make them less relevant. Amaekuma (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A family that has four or more notable members is itself notable. Athel cb (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a very notable and important family in Sierra Leone. Meanderingbartender (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Education, Medicine, England, and Jamaica. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an interesting family with an interesting history. Even though they have individual articles, I think there's value in having capsule biographies in one place to see how the family evolved and spread out. It conveys additional information in this way that individual articles don't unless you read all of them.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Easmon family intermarried with the Smith family. There's a lengthy history of the Easmon dynasty in Ghana and Sierra Leone that I'm sure discusses the Smiths:

"The Brothers Easmon" by Nigel Browne-Davies, Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, No. 16 (2014), pp. 45-110 (66 pages)

Published By: Historical Society of Ghana

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more I research, the more I see this was a remarkable family. There are probably more descendants to add at some point. I think the family as a unit is also notable: take a look at how many of the text snippets in the Google Scholar search mention the "Smith family". There is a wealth of academic material on the Smiths.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also: [1] Chamaemelum (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keeping the article about the family and keeping the articles about the individuals are not mutually exclusive. See Kennedy family or Jackson family. Bremps... 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fine to keep this. The members are individually notable. Agree it helps with context to present them in a single article. Navigational benefit as well. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 11 July 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.