Deletion of Royal Apothecary Society

Comment: an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as |gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire |original research is not a valid reason for deletion.  The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not |notable is not valid reason for deletion.  An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as |plot summaries shows. #REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made.   says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT||WP:OR||WP:N||WP:PLOT||WP:DEL||WP:ATD)

Comment: the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from  not for any valid reasons.  The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)