Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceri King

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. This discussion was fairly closely balanced in terms of numerical votes. However, in terms of policy backed positions, the delete !votes had significantly more weight centered around insufficient secondary sourcing to meet GNG/BIO. Those arguing in favour of keep generally felt that the position had inherent notability. While there are certain positions where that holds up on Wikipedia, they are enumerated exceptions - with civil servants in this position not falling into it.

There were also several comments about likely alternate routes per ANYBIO in the future. These are certainly possible, and I will draftify the article on request, but are not sufficient as things currently stand.

There wasn't agreement on a redirect target, since the proposed one isn't an exact category match. If users want to add in, or discuss first, that is certainly fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceri King

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

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

Non-notable civil servant; search finds nothing, and no ex officio notability either despite the grand-sounding titles (certainly not for _deputy_ posts). Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Crown Office is a key part of the inner workings of the Monarchy in the UK. It is not well known mainly due to being very secretive - the only way to get information out of them is through Freedom of Information requests. That being said, the Crown Office article as well as the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery page explain the duties of the Crown Office. The Deputy Clerk nowdays runs the Crown Office due to the titular Clerk being the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. As a matter of fact, it is the Deputy Clerk (Ceri King in this case) that takes the title of Head of the Crown Office. If you google “Ceri King” I am aware theres little to no results (the same will happen if you google Elaine Chilver and Ian Denyer, both of which are former Deputy Clerks of the Crown in Chancery), but I have just explained why that is. Creating articles about the Crown Office will make it more accessible to the public, and isn’t that what this website was created for? If not that, then tell me whats the purpose of Wikipedia. Mrs King will probably be on the list of candidates after Antonia Romeo retires, and with that become the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. She currently holds 2 senior appointments within the civil service, and that should be enough to give her a place in this encyclopedia. Some information is missing, such as her birthday, which is currently being researched. Her appearances in Parliament will be added tomorrow, as well as her career within the Privy Council Office, which started over 10 years ago. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect, this article isn't about the Crown Office, or even the post of the (Deputy) Clark of Crown Office, so whether or not those are notable isn't relevant. This is about the individual, and civil servants are not inherently notable, so she would need to satisfy the GNG criteria, and she doesn't. Besides, I can't see how having an article on this person does anything to 'make the Crown Office more accessible to the public'. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @DoubleGrazing: Civil servants are very notable indeed. The departments of the UK Government would not run without them. They do not all deserve an article, as most of them are simply secretaries and other "normal" jobs, but the senior civil servants are what keep the civil service going. In the case of the Crown Office, it is the Deputy Clerk of the Crown (Ceri King) that takes the title of Head of the Crown Office - she is the one that runs the Crown Office. As if that wasn't enough, she is also Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Head of Secretariat, and runs all the paperwork and background work of Privy Council meetings. She is indeed very relevant and notable, even if she does not get press coverage. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the key to Wikipedia is verifiability. People may actually be very important, but if we do not have the sources to show that, then they are not. For example Gerrit W. Gong may have been the most important person in the Bateman and Samuelson administrations, but without adequate sourcing of how his actions were key to the university functioning we would not have created an article on him, although evidently his academic contributions in the 1980s were actually at a level to make him notable, and his current position as a member of the quorum of the 12 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clearly enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Johnpacklambert: I have just updated the Ceri King article with the sources that speak of her career. Alex Galloway was Clerk of the Privy Council (Ceri King's boss), and still has a page with half of the information I've put in for Ceri King. I believe both persons (Alex and Ceri) are relevant to the Privy Council Office, but if we are talking about quality of sources, my article on Ceri King is far more advanced, but still the discussion is based on only my article, and not on the hundreds of articles with less than 100 words about people who never contributed to society or to their home nation at all. Ceri King has indeed, and continues to, contribute to the UK Civil Service in the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) and Cabinet Office (Privy Council Office), and deserves to have a page to certify that. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see why people would think Ceri King (or any Deputy Clerk of the Crown Office for that matter) wouldn't be important to warrant an article in here, but having made various Freedom of Information requests to the Crown Office, I am well aware of their importance, and of the recognition they deserve. Their work is usually under the shadow and is very secretive, which is why news outlets do not cover them, and also why there aren't that many sources talking about them, except of course the Gazette, the Court Circular and Acts of Parliaments - there are many books that speak about the Crown Office anyways, it just takes a bit of searching for them. A recent one, "By Royal Appointment: Tales from the Privy Council", even thanks Ceri King for her contributions to the book. Making this page will change that and will allow for their activities to be known to the public as they should - what they do is not illegal, its just they prefer not to be all public about it, and until now no one has cared to change that. Well its time for a change. Kaceymontaguu (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't help noticing how remarkably similar your arguments, and even the language you use, are to those of MaximusWikipedian. How curious. Anyway, let me say it once more: how 'important' someone is, or how much in your opinion they may 'deserve' to have a Wikipedia article, isn't what is being considered here. I suggest you revise WP:N, and especially the section dealing with significant coverage, to understand better the concept of notability, which is the basis for this AfD. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is wholly lacking in reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (GNG fail). It has been WP:REFBOMBed with primary sources such as employee listings and letters, but none of these prove anything other than she exists and has a job. WP:SYNTH and OR has been used to try and weave this into an article. This should be discouraged. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Unable to find any secondary sourcing, but anyone looking for her will likely be looking for her related to that position. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would only make sense if she actually held that post, but she doesn't. Otherwise someone searching for Ceri King and being directed without explanation to an article on the Clerk of the Crown would probably be confused. (And yes, I know she is currently listed in that article, for having served for a few months' interim, but IMO she should be removed from that list anyway.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current page is clearly better than proposed alternatives such as redirect to Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The subject clearly had a significant ceremonial and adminstrative role and they show up in matters such as Privy Council warns BIS not to alter ‘sensitive’ word list and The Curious Case Of Camilla And The Privy Council. Our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect, PRESERVE does not apply here, nor does it override the need for notability. And as for having a 'significant' role, that largely goes for the 5,000 or so Senior Civil Servants (and that's just in the UK alone); should notability be waived for all of them on the basis that their work is important? If so, can someone point to the relevant guideline providing for this? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a general rule, civil servants are supposed to be non-notable. The job is to apply the law as written, in an apolitical and broadly agreed-upon fashion. This is not to say that civil servants do not do important work, I myself am a civil servant. But with the exception of a few people who work in the communications department, none of us should appear in the news. If this person was known for some sort of scandal, some sort of mistake, some sort of misconduct, that might make her notable. But for a civil servant in the normal conduct of their business, no, I don't see how they become notable. Ideally a civil servant should be generally indistinguishable from their predecessors or successors. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Civil servants are usually not notable, except when they actually performs duties that grant them relevance. Ceri King is a constant figure for the Crown Office, and has attended Parliament numerous times to perform her duties publically. No other Deputy Clerk had ever been as active as she has, specially in regards to Freedom of Information requests MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a lot of debate for someone who will probably soon be awarded the CB and become notable under WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is the point I am trying to make. The previous Clerk of the Crown, Ian Denyer, was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) and a Member of the Royal Victorian Order (MVO), and considering Ceri King is also Clerk of the Privy Council, it is likely she will become an Officer or Commander of either of the said orders, if not, as you said, a Companion of the Order of the Bath. I would even go as far as to say she would qualify for a knighthood (to be a dame, considering she's female). MaximusWikipedian (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (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.