- 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 delete. While there are arguments made to Keep here, I find them unconvincing; one saying that headmasters of prominent schools are "inherently notable" without backing that up, and another who references the subject's inclusion in directories including Who's Who and Debrett's. I find neither argument convincing, especially given that this is an unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- John Franklin (headmaster) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Locally known headteacher. No significant coverage of the subject and offices held to date do not qualify the subject as notable Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete blatantly fails WP:BIO. headmasters are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Although the school is clearly notable, that notability is not automatically inherited by the headmaster. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree. Headmasters of prestigious public schools (i.e. independent schools), such as Christ's Hospital and indeed Ardingly College are somewhat notable. The idea that this is "only locally so" is ridiculous, and demonstrates a deeply profound misunderstanding of the English public school system. He has an entry in Who's Who here and in Debrett's People of Today [1], either of which would normally indicate coverage and therefore notability. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Headmasters of prominent schools are inherently notable. Also in directories above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC).
- Comment with respect to Who's Who and Debrett's People of Today, these publications also list QCs, circuit judges, company directors and other such persons who as a general rule of thumb would not be considered "inherently notable", so merely being listed in one of these publications (or both) does not necessarily mean that the subject should warrant an article. Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 05:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you supply evidence for this claim?
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
- Sure - the publisher's website states that this is the case:
[2] ("What makes Who's Who unique is that each biographee provides the details for their entry, and many include contact details"). It's also stated that there's fact checking, but that "The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical"
[3]
Nick-D (
talk) 05:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the source, the material provided may be edited by the journal. However, inclusion is by invitation only and is not, like Marquis Who's Who, open to virtually everybody. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
- Sure - the publisher's website states that this is the case:
[2] ("What makes Who's Who unique is that each biographee provides the details for their entry, and many include contact details"). It's also stated that there's fact checking, but that "The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical"
[3]
Nick-D (
talk) 05:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you supply evidence for this claim?
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
- Delete This is currently an unreferenced BLP (the only reference is to a dead link which appears to have once been an edition of the school newsletter), and no independent references to support the assertions that Mr Franklin meets WP:BIO have been provided. As such, notability isn't currently established, and as this is a BLP we should delete the article. Nick-D ( talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. While there are arguments made to Keep here, I find them unconvincing; one saying that headmasters of prominent schools are "inherently notable" without backing that up, and another who references the subject's inclusion in directories including Who's Who and Debrett's. I find neither argument convincing, especially given that this is an unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- John Franklin (headmaster) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Locally known headteacher. No significant coverage of the subject and offices held to date do not qualify the subject as notable Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete blatantly fails WP:BIO. headmasters are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Although the school is clearly notable, that notability is not automatically inherited by the headmaster. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree. Headmasters of prestigious public schools (i.e. independent schools), such as Christ's Hospital and indeed Ardingly College are somewhat notable. The idea that this is "only locally so" is ridiculous, and demonstrates a deeply profound misunderstanding of the English public school system. He has an entry in Who's Who here and in Debrett's People of Today [1], either of which would normally indicate coverage and therefore notability. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Headmasters of prominent schools are inherently notable. Also in directories above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC).
- Comment with respect to Who's Who and Debrett's People of Today, these publications also list QCs, circuit judges, company directors and other such persons who as a general rule of thumb would not be considered "inherently notable", so merely being listed in one of these publications (or both) does not necessarily mean that the subject should warrant an article. Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 05:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you supply evidence for this claim?
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
- Sure - the publisher's website states that this is the case:
[2] ("What makes Who's Who unique is that each biographee provides the details for their entry, and many include contact details"). It's also stated that there's fact checking, but that "The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical"
[3]
Nick-D (
talk) 05:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the source, the material provided may be edited by the journal. However, inclusion is by invitation only and is not, like Marquis Who's Who, open to virtually everybody. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
- Sure - the publisher's website states that this is the case:
[2] ("What makes Who's Who unique is that each biographee provides the details for their entry, and many include contact details"). It's also stated that there's fact checking, but that "The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical"
[3]
Nick-D (
talk) 05:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you supply evidence for this claim?
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
- Delete This is currently an unreferenced BLP (the only reference is to a dead link which appears to have once been an edition of the school newsletter), and no independent references to support the assertions that Mr Franklin meets WP:BIO have been provided. As such, notability isn't currently established, and as this is a BLP we should delete the article. Nick-D ( talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.