Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia


 * 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organization. Was nominated for PROD, speedied under A7, and contested, thus listed for AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Comment It would be worth looking at Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference before forming an opinion on the Australian Conference. An article on the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia, which replaced the Australian Conference, is also required to make sense of all this and to bring it into line with the English article. Archifile 04:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Comment I think this is just part of the ongoing attack on anyone who has contributed or commented on Newington College. Tallum, who created this page, must have fallen foul of a ExtraDry. Is it time for a snow job? Archifile 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No notable Conference wikipedia is not for listing some random clubs that people start up. ExtraDry 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Far from being a random club the Headmasters' Conference was the peak body representing the independent schools of Australia for 50 years. It was modeled on the English Conference and was founded by four of the most influential Headmasters in Austrlia's history (Sir Francis Rolland CMG OBE, Sir James Darling , Lenard Robson CBE MC and the Rev Julian Bickersteth MC . The involvement of many members of the Conference on the executive committee is refered to in their biographies in the Australian Dictionary of Biography e.g., Sir Brian hone ,Charles Fisher  and Denys Hake . A major history of the Conference outlining its activities and influence, Our Proper Concerns, was written by James Wilson Hogg OBE. The Journal of the Conference is held by the National Library of Australia . Clearly the introduction needs to be improved to assert notablilty and to clarify that this wasn't an occasional "conference" in the more commonly held sense of the word but a major force in Australian education. Archifile 03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Archifile. It's not some kind of table tennis playing youth club as the nominator seems to imply.  Nick mallory 05:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some work will obviously be needed, and I think it will include moving the article to the current name. But it's notable; to help things along, Archifile should add the references listed above right now. DGG (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Bduke 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is amazing how something that is very notable can sometimes be written up in a way that makes it seems so non-notable. Archifile is spot on. This is a very notable organisation in Australia. --Bduke 05:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added some of the information given above by Archifile, but it needs perhaps to be put in a better way. --Bduke 08:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article doesnt assert notability, but is certainly is. Twenty Years 05:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks are not welcome. I did not speedy this page or put it up for AFD. ExtraDry 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ExtraDry appears to be the first person to edit this article after the page was created and called for its deletion based on being a dated product or concern. This may not be a speedy or an AFD but it seems to have been the basis upon which the article was removed. I am not as well versed in the management of Wikipedia as DXRAW/ExtraDry so it is hard for me to be sure but I suspect that the above comment is at best only half true. Archifile 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I notice that that ExtraDry is now calling for the deletion of all articles on Headmasters of Newington. Where will this end. Tallum 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needless to say, as the creator of this page I believe it should be kept and doubt that I need to say more than Archifile has already said. If it survives I will be happy to expand the introduction and over time create pages for the many major educational figures who for a period where Chairman of this august body. Sorry I didn't make it clear enough in the first place. Tallum 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed all of them and nominated two. ExtraDry 09:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's ridiculous to call this "some random club". RegRCN 15:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You know, I think the best thing people could do is show the notability of this organization through the use of third-party reliable sources, not claiming notability or making attacks on the nomination. Please read WP:ORG for more of an explanation. FrozenPurpleCube 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article already has a number of sources establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any. There's one that indicates they published their own journal.  Not a third-party source.  There's some mention in biographies of various people involved.  Not significant coverage.  Then there's a book.  Written by one of the chairmen.  Not very much independent there.  It may well even be self-published.  I would suggest looking for more independent sources that do a better job of establishing notability.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Headmasters publish a peer reviewed journal, Independence - doctors publish a peer reviewed Journal, The Lancet. It may not be a third party source but it is held by the National Library of Australia and is still published by the merged group of Heads so it is hardly a rag. You are quite right, the Hogg history is self-published in a narrow sense (he held the copyright and there isn't a publishing house involved) but it is hardly vanity publishing. James Wilson Hogg was an officer of the Order of the British Empire, a graduate of New Zealand University and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read history, a published novelist and the author of numerous broadcast radio plays. At the moment it seems the best third-party source is the Australian Dictionary of Biography which has frequent references to the Conference and which at the present time seems to be a slighty better reference source than Wikipedia. So lets get a grip of our own self importance here and end this ridiculous time wasting debate and start writing some entries rather than ditching them. After all, we aren't short of space! Tallum 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX isn't applicable here since the Lancet is a different magazine, with a different scope. And well  shows me plenty of cases of third-party sources noting articles in the Lancet. Several times as "Landmark study" which may be fluff, but it still tells me that others consider the publication reputable enough for an article on it.   (Note by the way, I don't consider the articles on the Lancet, Reed Elsevier or Elsevier to be particularly good, but that's another matter).  I don't know that there's anything close to that level of notability here for their journal.  If you can produce some similar results, that might mean something though.  The same with producing some results for James Wilson Hogg that meet WP:BIO.  The OBE and his graduations don't make it.  Published books might, depending on who published them, the same with who broadcast those radio plays.  Which you'll need to provide with reliable sources, not just your personal assertions.  And your attitude of wasting time with this discussion is missing the point.    The best way to convince folks is not to tell them to do something else, or that this discussion is a waste of time, but rather to make assertions of notability through recognition in third-party sources.  That should be your goal.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources given establish notability for mine. It needs more work but that is true of many articles. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notability obvious to any discerning reader, sources growing as we speak, keep it and expand it. What more needs to be said. Waterdanks 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. ExtraDry 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no knowledge of this organisation, but in Britian, the Headmasters' conference is the umbrola organisation representing all "public schools", the usual term for independent fee-paying secondary schools. That is certainly notable.  I presume that the subject of the article is its Austrialian equivalent, but I am not voting as I do not know.  Peterkingiron 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly one of the most important educational bodies in Australian history and when linked to the current amalgamated body is without doubt a keep. Mitchplusone 11:40, 9 August 2007 (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.