Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Receiver of the Metropolitan Police

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 keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Receiver of the Metropolitan Police[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Beyond confirmation it exists, I don't see any significant coverage of the position and none found either in my searches. This has been tagged since 2008, with little to no improvements made. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Considering that many of them have articles can be useful per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. --PaulT2022 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable position with plenty of available sources. Mostly in print, obviously, given it was abolished in 2000 and lost a lot of its standing after 1968. But before that, equal in status to the Commissioner. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merits a full 29-page chapter in John Moylan's definitive 1929 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police, plus sections in pretty much every other book about the history of the Met. As I said, relying on online sources for earlier topics is not the best idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Interesting article about a significant organisation with adequate WP:RS Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the offline sources mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong with off-line sources, and the article is now well-referenced. Additionally, since the majority of holders of this post are of themselves notable, this article would have been a valid navigational list even without sourcing. But it's much better as a properly referenced article. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 31 January 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.