Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Ford (Royal 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 no consensus.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Unsourced BLP since 2006 about a member of the Royal Household. There are a few online sources, but they do not appear to be about the person themselves. Prod removed by author. Unsourced BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his army career is fairly easily confirmed from the

London Gazette viz http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/issues/exact=(503807)/start=1 (an earlier search I did established that 503807 is his army serial number). A google search on "Andrew Ford" comptroller produces some relevant hits, and going into Google news found me http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article548293.ece which confirms his appointment as comptroller. Whether holding this appointment is sufficient for notability, I'm not sure. David Underdown (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Yes, that's the issue really. Despite the addition of numerous references about his military career, it doesn't appear to show any independent notability, so the issue purely appears to rest on whether holding such a post actually confers notability. Black Kite 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Publication of a notice in the London Gazette does not constitute an independent source, as the Gazette does not exercise editorial control of the notices it publishes. A single, brief note in the Times on his appointment is not adequate to establish notability. The position he holds is not one that is listed as automatically notable in any section of
  WP:BIO. The closest described position is that of a diplomat, although he is not a diplomat in the traditional sense of the word, and that position is not considered automatically notable in any case. JulesH (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The Comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain's Office organises major royal events, such as State Visits by overseas Heads of State each year, Investitures, Garden Parties, the State Opening of Parliament, the Garter and Thistle Services, Swan Upping, Royal Warrants, Trade Marks, Royal Insignia, Ceremonial Body Guards, the Crown Jewels, and part-time and honorary appointments, including the Ecclestiastical and Medical Households. It organises Royal weddings and funerals and other special events. He also organises royal weddings and funerals. A number of previous comptrollers - though not all - have entries in Wikipedia.Ncox (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the above comment, which clarified things. DGG (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His Lt. Colonel rank and his job with the government do not as such satisfy
  WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a directory of every retired officer with a government job, even if he is in charge of garden parties for the Royal Family. Edison (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment if kept, it should be renamed "Royal Household" means little, perhaps (UK military) 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He's certainly not notable on the basis of his miltary career, he seems to have had a fairly routine career, although promotion to lt-col is not guaranteed. If he is notable it is on the basis of his Royal Household position, so that is the more sensible disambiguator. "British Army officer" would be the msot commonly used form in any case for a disambiguator based on his army career. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a UK bias. When is the UK royal household the only one in the world? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominations concern was the lack of sources but article now has numerous citations and the
  journal of record. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - the London Gazette citations utilized within the article are related to his promotions in the army, which any officer in the British Armed Forces would have if they were advanced in rank. The London Gazette is a reliable source (I have myself used it numerous times), but its addition in an article does not determine notability of the subject in question. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2009 (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.