Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Scott (headmaster)


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

David Scott (headmaster)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested prod. High school principals are not generally notable, and this one fails WP:GNG, though it is difficult looking for sources due to the name being common. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has an entry in Who's Who in Australia, which counts as significant coverage (ie, meets GNG) in my book. Jenks24 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete In the absence of any further sources (or legitimate claim to their existence), appears to fail WP:ANYBIO. -- Trevj (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I never argued that he passed ANYBIO, but I would argue that he meets WP:BASIC. Your request for more reasonable, though, so in addition the Who's Who in Australia entry ("People are included if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. [...] Each person's nomination is considered on its merits alone and entry in the book cannot be paid for. The book is a snapshot of Australian society at a particular point in time."), there is also an abundance of coverage in major Australian newspapers. Here are some examples: Sydney Morning Herald, SMH, SMH, SMH, SMH, Daily Telegraph, news.com.au, SMH. These are all from the first page of my gnews search for "David Scott" + "Newington" – there are 100 more articles like that and that's just for one of the schools he was principal of. Also, while I'll be the first to admit that probably only the first article is primarily about Scott, he does get significant mentions in the others, which to me falls in line with WP:BASIC's "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I've just said, I had another look at the article and it appears that many of those SMH articles were also carried by The Age and Australian Associated Press (e.g. ). He has also been interviewed on national television, on ABC current affairs program, Lateline . Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Being in the Who's Who isn't enough to be deemed notable. Beyond that, none of the articles cited are about him in particular.JoelWhy (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This one is. Also, don't confuse the Australian Who's Who, which is a quality independent publication, with other Who's Who publications from other countries where you can pay for an entry – they are not related. Jenks24 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our entry on Who's Who in Australia states that it lists notable Australians. I agree with Jenks24 that this makes this Headmaster notable. The other sources add to the notability. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on sound arguments of Jenks24 and BDuke. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep per BDuke and Jenks24. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong Delete I do not consider any who's who, at least beyond the original UK who's who in the early years, reliable at all for determining notability. Our article on the australian one should not be relied on: since when is Wikipedia a RS for anything?  We're a RS only in so far as we have references to RSs, and looking at the  evidence in that article that the publication is an accurate measure of notability, I see it is only  a bald unsupported statement--as is everything else in the article, one of our many  articles that exemplify the  promotionalism we need to be getting rid of.  Admitting this series as evidence of notability would be a sharp decline on our standards. The reason we do not accept who's who publications as notability is not generally that one can pay for inclusion (although there are some of that sort indeed of that totally deceptive level), but that the subjects have considerable control of the material in them.  (The various US regional who's whos don't accept payment either, but their standard for inclusion are truly arbitrary.) The other references in the article arenistky not about him,. but about the school.-- the one cited above as being about him is a attack article, of the sort we rarely give credence to.   DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong reply. No one is saying that the subject's don't have a say about what is in their entry, but they don't have a say in their inclusion, which is where the notability comes from. Check out this article in The Age: "entry in Who's Who in Australia is by invitation only. An editorial board vets nominations, conducts research, checks prizewinners and follows the media and Australia Day honours." Also, they generally include about 300–400 people per year. In a population of 22 million you have to do something significant to be one of those few. Also, it has been cited in plenty of scholarly works, for example two Deakin University professors used Who's Who in Australia to get a sample of community leaders in Australia for their International Journal of Science Education article (subscription required, can email you the article if you want). There are plenty of other articles like that if you look through the gscholar hits. On your last point, I strongly suggest you re-read the article – it's far from an "attack article". Not to mention it was published in The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's highest circulation broadsheet. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To add to this, although from the publisher's own site, this is the stated criteria for inclusion: "People are included in Who’s Who in Australia if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. They are people who have built a positive profile over time. There are no restrictions on age or sex and entrants need not be born in Australia. Each person’s nomination is considered on its merits alone and entry in the book cannot be paid for. The book is a snapshot of Australian society at a particular point in time". This is from http://www.crowncontent.com.au/whos-who-entry-criteria.html. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks BDuke. You have clearly established that Who's Who in Australia is a source of notability (as is Who's Who (UK)). By contrast, Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source of notability. They even touted me for an entry. All Who's Whos are not equal and one has to discriminate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2012 (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.