Deletion of Ceri King

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 , and especially the section dealing with ''significant coverage'', to understand better the concept of notability, which is the basis for this AfD. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This article is wholly lacking in reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (GNG fail). It has been ed with primary sources such as employee listings and letters, but none of these prove anything other than she exists and has a job.  and OR has been used to try and weave this into an article. This should be discouraged
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/privy-council-warns-bis-not-to-alter-sensitive-word-list/2007236.article Privy Council warns BIS not to alter ‘sensitive’ word list and ''https://venerablepuzzle.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/the-curious-case-of-camilla-and-the-privy-council/ The Curious Case Of Camilla And The Privy Council''.  Our policy  applies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)