| Revision as of 03:58, 24 December 2013 editXxanthippe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,479 edits ?← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:23, 24 December 2013 edit undoNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,154 edits →John Franklin (headmaster): cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| **'''Comment''' Further to this, I believe that the subjects of entries in Who's Who provide the text for their entry, so this wouldn't quality as a high-quality independent source anyway. ] (]) 03:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | **'''Comment''' Further to this, I believe that the subjects of entries in Who's Who provide the text for their entry, so this wouldn't quality as a high-quality independent source anyway. ] (]) 03:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Can you supply evidence for this claim? ] (]) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC). | ::Can you supply evidence for this claim? ] (]) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC). | ||
| :::Sure - the publisher's website states that this is the case: ("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" ] (]) 05:23, 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 ] have been provided. As such, notability isn't currently established, and as this is a BLP we should delete the article. ] (]) 03:30, 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 ] have been provided. As such, notability isn't currently established, and as this is a BLP we should delete the article. ] (]) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:23, 24 December 2013
John Franklin (headmaster)
- John Franklin (headmaster) (edit | 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 , 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).
- "Headmasters of prominent schools are inherently notable" please refer to the actual guideline which says this. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 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)
- Comment Further to this, I believe that the subjects of entries in Who's Who provide the text for their entry, so this wouldn't quality as a high-quality independent source anyway. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 24 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: ("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" 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)