Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apothecary to the Household
all. There is no such thing as deletion because an article is {{tq|"insufficiently verifiable ()"}}; |policy makes the explicit requirement that {{strong|"thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"}}, and as demonstrated in e.g. Special:Diff/894829929, Special:Diff/894832770, Special:Diff/894885539, Special:Diff/894895103, Special:Diff/894898963, Special:Diff/894986382, etc. that requirement can hardly have been fulfilled pre-AfD tagging.{{break}}|Policy gives us some alternatives to deletion that are preferred over deletion. If an article title, did it not already exist, would otherwise be a reasonable request at /R, then a merge and redirect or in some cases just a redirect is a better solution than deletion. In the words of -R {{strong|"If redirection will not leave an unsuitable trailing redirect, deletion is not required"}}. A possible example in this case could be Warden of the Swans: some would argue, that it could be merged into and redirected to the much older position Keeper of the Queen's Swans. A similar argument could be made regarding Marker of the Swans, which, who knows why, was not included in this AfD bundle. But such decisions are a matter of editing, and do not require a discussion at AfD.{{break}}All these positions are either notable for stand-alone articles, or can be merged into other article titles
— User:Sam, 06:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:DEL7||WP:ATD||WP:AFC||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:Verifiability)