Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page of the Presence

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page of the Presence

[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)

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

Minor positions in the British royal household. Unsourced and of no apparent notability. If sourceable, possiby merge to Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Sandstein 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a couple of pages in Sketches of her majesty's household (1848) but that's about all I could find besides passing mentions. Even that does not discuss the actual role very much; it's more about pay and promotion. Royal Households of the United Kingdom doesn't strike me as a practical merge target, that article is organised by specific royal households, and has little to say on the roles other than the very senior ones. A "list of minor characters" type article is what is needed for a merge target. SpinningSpark 18:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a broader article such as Positions in the British Royal Household or even just British Royal Household would be helpful - at least better than the current plethora of unsourced ministubs. WP:V mandates deletion if contested content cannot be sourced - and nobody here has been able to source this content. Sandstein 21:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most positions in the Royal Household are notable. See Category:Positions within the British Royal Household. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to provide some evidence for this position if you want your opinion to count per WP:OTHERSTUFF. SpinningSpark 17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is, why single out this particular post when there are articles on all of them? That makes no sense and is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing here to retain as there are no sources. We don't keep original research on subjects, even if there's other similar stuff that's been notable in the past. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of references does not equal original research. A common misconception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment develop the article and then I will circle back Lubbad85 (☎) 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several articles relating to similar positions (Page of the Backstairs and Page of Honour for example) and while this article is clearly not sourced well, I think it needs some work before being nominated for deletion. I will spend some time looking for primary sources on this subject, as it seems potentially noteworthy. Skirts⁸⁹ 13:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both articles are unsourced stubs and are comprised entirely of OR. There is no demonstration that either topic passes WP:GNG as there is no sustained WP:SIGCOV of either group of employees or what they do. That there might be more such articles elsewhere is not an argument against deletion, but a weak cop out to save OR stubs some evidently like. And no, I didn't count that useless Independent citation as a source, as it tells us nothing of value. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:09, 28 April 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.