Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apothecary to the Household


 * 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. The clear overwhelming consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Apothecary to the Household

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a collective nomination of brief stub articles in Category:Positions within the British Royal Household which are not notable (WP:GNG), and which are insufficiently verifiable (WP:V). The articles are all unsourced, or sourced only sporadically to primary sources, such as notices of the appointment of an individual officeholder. The situation is the same as that of the articles deleted in Articles for deletion/Page of the Presence.  Sandstein  09:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep A blatant failure of WP:BEFORE. Just about everything associated with the British royal family is notable so, if more sources are wanted, it's just a matter of looking for them and so one immediately finds substantial books about these topics.  For example, here's a book about the Royal Apothecaries and here's a book covering all the various positions in the household.  See also WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN. Most of these stubs have been tagged as requiring sources for years. You're welcome to source them now.  Sandstein   09:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Some articles such as List of Treasurers to British royal consorts, Deputy Clerk of the Closet and Physician to the Queen are clearly valid list articles, explaining what the title means, and then listing those who held the title, most of their names blue linked to their own articles.  This batch nomination is ridiculous.  If any articles are simply stubs without chance of expanding, then turn those into redirects into a page listing all the royal titles and what they are.   D r e a m Focus  10:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Andrew D. and   D r e a m Focus . Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Andrew D. and Mosaicberry. Mccapra (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My vote was 'per Andrew D. and  D r e a m Focus '.... Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Useful part of the encyclopedia.  Sources do exist to upgrade these stubs. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Andrew D.   Lubbad85   (<b style="color:#060">☎</b>) 14:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of positions of the Royal Household or something. Sure they can sourced but there's no reason they all need individual articles. Reywas92Talk 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It's easy to find sources for Personal Protection Officer by that title such as this, but the page probably ought to be merged with bodyguard. Deletion would be quite inappropriate per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, proof positive that number of edits or adminship is no guarantee of quality editorial decisions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep all. There is no such thing as deletion because an article is "insufficiently verifiable (WP:V)"; policy makes the explicit requirement that, 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 . 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. Sam Sailor 06:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.