Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jeanne Bathgate


 * 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) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Jeanne Bathgate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a non-notable high-school principal that fails WP:BIO. A Google search for "jeanne bathgate" and "baulkham" (the name of the school she works at) result in 30 hits (most of which are yellow page listings), and the apparent three references are really all the same link, which doesn't mention her name at all. (If not deleted, the article should be speedily redirected to Baulkham Hills High School.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Recently, you listed the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate" for deletion. You said that the school she works at was "baulkham", however, it is "baulkham hills high school". A Google search for the school returned 18,800 results, and a search for "dr jeanne bathgate" returned 291,000 results. If possible, could you please reconsider your deletion listing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRAHSsucks (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I understand all that, but the problem lies within whether those links are reliable sources, and I don't think they are. And just because the school is notable doesn't mean everyone that works there is notable. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I only Googled for the first word of the school because if that doesn't come back as reliable, I doubt its use in the rest of the phrase will. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you go to the end of the Google results, there are only 327 hits for "baulkham hills high school" and 51 hits for "jeanne bathgate". Abductive  (reasoning) 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with no redirect. The subject of the article has no coverage on the internet and absolutely no importance.  Any of Bathgate's real information wouldn't even fit into the Baulkham Hills High School article.  As a redirect, we can't have every single principal have a redirect to the school in which they work. —  ♣  №tǒŖïøŭş  4lĭfė   ♫   ♪  06:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It is possible for the headmaster of a noted school to be notable, but I don;t see how this comes near it. I do point out though that there is no requirement that information be on the internet.   DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, article makes no claim of notability for this person. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not at all notable. Complete absence of reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is simply a recitation of where this person has worked and contains no claim of why she might be notable (as  Abductive has pointed out already). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. At this time, there is insufficient evidence of non-trivial coverage. —  C M B J   15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete while some notable people have worked as high-school principals, nobody is notable because they worked as a high-school principal, even if the school itself is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:TEACHER. WWGB (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a thoroughly inadequate article with multiple style policy problems. Afterwriting (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see nothing in the article that even comes close to making a case for notability. If the AfD hadn't already gone on plenty long enough I'd suggest an A1 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 19 March 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.