Honorary Chaplain to the King : The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces.  However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests.  I do not believe that the article can be repaired.  As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 ( talk • contribs ) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ; listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility , Christianity ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The inaccuracies can easily be ironed out but the topic is notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  If sources are found that provide direct and indepth coverage, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment.  In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces.  All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household.  As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed.  It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.---- Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.  Also per WP:TNT : if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep TNT is not necessary for a small stub such as this, any corrections can be made in situ.  Has reliable sources book coverage, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus here, the discussion is ongoing and would benefit from editors knowledgeable about this subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An interesting and informative article about a position not necessarily written about often, nor well-known outside the UK.  This would be even better with expansion.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus