Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernadette Clayton


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernadette Clayton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews about this specific Bernadette Clayton. the claim about being a "prominent" educator is only in 1 ref in the article. only 1 article in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, per WP:BIO. Side note: I don't think WP:PROF would apply to a high school teacher.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The main claim seems to be nothing more than that this person was at one time an assistant principal and then wrote an article about it in a trade magazine. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. Sorry, there is nothing here to substantial notability as Wikipedia defines it.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (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.