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.
WP:BURDEN only applies to quotations and material which is so controversial that it might reasonably be challenged. It's not carte blanche to dump an entire category at AfD. The burden on nominators is spelt out in
WP:BEFORE, listing sixteen separate steps. As the massive expansion of the nomination after its creation indicates that this due diligence has not been done, I now reckon that a speedy close is appropriate to spare us the likely
WP:TRAINWRECK.
Andrew D. (
talk)
10:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. Good grief: the AfD on
Pages of the Presence was terribly researched by both "keep" and "delete" sides. A Google search immediately reveals that that subject was covered by the
Office-Holders in Modern Britain series, a description of current duties from the
Royal Household's blog, and print coverage in Allison & Riddell's "Royal Encyclopedia" (1991). In general, the Office-Holders in Modern Britain series and its extension at
Robert Bucholz's database should provide a brief description and a list of office-holders for most positions in the Royal Household.
Choess (
talk)
00:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Addendum:
Personal Protection Officer is completely unsourced, and may be a generic term rather than the title of an office. I would not object to deleting that on its own merits, or lack thereof, but this bundled AfD is overbroad.
Choess (
talk)
02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep as all above. All notable positions. All verifiable. All with plenty of sources. Poorly sourced does not equal unable to be sourced or non-notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep all. There is no such thing as deletion because an article is "insufficiently verifiable (
WP:V)";
policy makes the explicit requirement that "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", and as demonstrated in e.g.
Special:Diff/894829929,
Special:Diff/894832770,
Special:Diff/894885539,
Special:Diff/894895103,
Special:Diff/894898963,
Special:Diff/894986382, etc. that requirement can hardly have been fulfilled pre-AfD tagging. Policy gives us some alternatives to deletion that are preferred over deletion. If an article title, did it not already exist, would otherwise be a reasonable request at
WP:AFC/R, then a merge and redirect or in some cases just a redirect is a better solution than deletion. In the words of
WP:ATD-R"If redirection will not leave an unsuitable trailing redirect, deletion is not required". A possible example in this case could be
Warden of the Swans: some would argue, that it could be merged into and redirected to the much older position
Keeper of the Queen's Swans. A similar argument could be made regarding
Marker of the Swans, which, who knows why, was not included in this AfD bundle. But such decisions are a matter of editing, and do not require a discussion at AfD. All these positions are either notable for stand-alone articles, or can be merged into other article titles. SamSailor06:33, 2 May 2019 (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.
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.
WP:BURDEN only applies to quotations and material which is so controversial that it might reasonably be challenged. It's not carte blanche to dump an entire category at AfD. The burden on nominators is spelt out in
WP:BEFORE, listing sixteen separate steps. As the massive expansion of the nomination after its creation indicates that this due diligence has not been done, I now reckon that a speedy close is appropriate to spare us the likely
WP:TRAINWRECK.
Andrew D. (
talk)
10:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. Good grief: the AfD on
Pages of the Presence was terribly researched by both "keep" and "delete" sides. A Google search immediately reveals that that subject was covered by the
Office-Holders in Modern Britain series, a description of current duties from the
Royal Household's blog, and print coverage in Allison & Riddell's "Royal Encyclopedia" (1991). In general, the Office-Holders in Modern Britain series and its extension at
Robert Bucholz's database should provide a brief description and a list of office-holders for most positions in the Royal Household.
Choess (
talk)
00:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Addendum:
Personal Protection Officer is completely unsourced, and may be a generic term rather than the title of an office. I would not object to deleting that on its own merits, or lack thereof, but this bundled AfD is overbroad.
Choess (
talk)
02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep as all above. All notable positions. All verifiable. All with plenty of sources. Poorly sourced does not equal unable to be sourced or non-notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep all. There is no such thing as deletion because an article is "insufficiently verifiable (
WP:V)";
policy makes the explicit requirement that "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", and as demonstrated in e.g.
Special:Diff/894829929,
Special:Diff/894832770,
Special:Diff/894885539,
Special:Diff/894895103,
Special:Diff/894898963,
Special:Diff/894986382, etc. that requirement can hardly have been fulfilled pre-AfD tagging. Policy gives us some alternatives to deletion that are preferred over deletion. If an article title, did it not already exist, would otherwise be a reasonable request at
WP:AFC/R, then a merge and redirect or in some cases just a redirect is a better solution than deletion. In the words of
WP:ATD-R"If redirection will not leave an unsuitable trailing redirect, deletion is not required". A possible example in this case could be
Warden of the Swans: some would argue, that it could be merged into and redirected to the much older position
Keeper of the Queen's Swans. A similar argument could be made regarding
Marker of the Swans, which, who knows why, was not included in this AfD bundle. But such decisions are a matter of editing, and do not require a discussion at AfD. All these positions are either notable for stand-alone articles, or can be merged into other article titles. SamSailor06:33, 2 May 2019 (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.