Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Smith (minister)


 * 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. This discussion turns on whether he meets WP:PROF #6, with no argument that he meets the main notability guideline. There is sufficient consensus here that the article does not meet the WP:PROF criteria, due to the institution not being a "major academic institution", and that therefore notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Smith (minister)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A "simply not notable" case here, speedy was overturned on the basis that it at least tries to assert notability, so here we are. This article's existence essentially depends on how far we wish to stretch the sub-guideline WP:PROF's criteria #6, "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ian Smith is the head of the Presbyterian Theological Centre, the theological college for the Presbyterian Church of Australia. I hold that the threshold of "major academic institution" is not met by a private college with a student body of 100. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad, insofar as it would lead us to consider a substantial share of all those who spend a lifetime in a teaching career at a post-secondary school to be notable. The fundamental test of WP:N should govern -- the presence of reliable, independent sources who write about the subject.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete, not notable by any standard, something evident in the text of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination sounds a bit like WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. I don't think we're stretching WP:PROF #6 to say that the subject passes those guidelines. The only point, as far as I can see, is whether the Presbyterian Theological Centre qualifies as a "major academic institution". Now, the number of students is not all that relevant - the significant thing is that it is one of three official seminaries of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. BUT if you look at the notes on the criteria of PROF #6, "if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university..." It puts the emphasis on accreditation. It does use the word "significant", but that is not well-defined, and I would suggest the PTC is significant. Hence, this passes Notability (academics). It simply isn't good enough to say "WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad" - it is a notability guideline, not an essay. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not big enough" doesn't have the slightest applicability here, don't even see why someone would cite that. As for "major academic institution", yes, student body size can indeed be a consideration.  This is a miniscule, private institution that IMO itself barely qualifies for a Wikiepdia article.  If the only thing you can hang your hat on for this guy is that he heads this bitty college, then that really isn't enough.  Single notability guides can't be abused in this fashion to give an utter and complete notability failure an article. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * totally agree with Tarc. Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a major academic institution. Ian Smith (minister) is no vice chancellor. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on basis that Presbyterian Theological Centre qualifies as a major academic institution and WP:Prof is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a major academic institution, it is a small specialist training college for people wanting to do Christian ministry, and does not offer a wide range of disciplines. fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the claim of Presbyterian Theological Centre being a major academic institution is so questionable i've nominated it for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And a glance at Google Books shows that to be a poor nomination, and strengthens the notability claims of this article. StAnselm (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

— 202.124.73.114] (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per WP:PROF #6, as the Presbyterian Theological Centre is in accredited institution in a country where accreditation is not given lightly; it offers recognised bachelor's and master's degrees (offering a "wide range of disciplines" is not part of WP:PROF, or we'd be forced to delete the article on the Dean of the Harvard Law School). -- 202.124.73.114 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * right the presbyterian centre is as notable as Harvard Law School. You have to be kidding me. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be "forced" to delete anything on anything. Wikipedia is not proscriptive. If someone is deemed to have sufficient notability then they get an article; if not, they don't. That's what these discussions are for. Harvard Law School is known throughout the world; I doubt whether the Presbyterian Theological Centre is known even to most Australians. Its principal cannot be deemed to be automatically notable just because of his office. He would have to have personal achievements that made him notable beyond this, and with all due respect to the gentleman, he just doesn't seem to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Principal of a tiny institution (yes, size does matter in these situations). Nothing else that seems to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While nobody disputes that the university is accredited the claim that this makes it a "Major academic institution" is laughable. Suggest changing the notes on wp:PROF 6 if the wording allows people to wikilawyer that he meets it, while the main criteria clearly shows he doesn't. Yoenit (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you just accuse me of wikilawyering? As it turns out, clarification was sought a few months ago, but the discussion didn't progress very far. In fact, I questioned the word "major" myself, but no-one responded. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps even Speedy Keep - the president of an accredited university certainly meets our academic guideline - and an accredited university is, by definition, a major academic institution (contrast with some think tanks on the one hand and a non-accredited university/many high schools on the other). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * it's not a university. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a seminary. It grants post-high-school degrees.  That makes it a university.  I mean, it even grants a doctorate, for crying out loud!  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * not a university, not even listed on the official Australian government website for universities. http://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/en/Courses/Universities LibStar (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a list of universities. Try again?  Not that a list matters either way - any institution that issues a higher education degree is a university. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The appropriate official Australian government website link would be here. -- 202.124.74.103 (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Which says it's a theological college in the broad category of "university/higher education" but not precisely a university. 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)
 * It offers government-accredited higher degrees, including doctorates. That's university-level. It is audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). -- 202.124.72.198 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Articles for deletion/Presbyterian Theological Centre has been closed after the nomination was withdrawn. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not actually terribly relevant. The article on the institution was nominated for deletion after the article on its principal. And I for one voted to keep the former and delete the latter. The institution, as a degree-awarding body, is clearly notable. That does not make the principal automatically notable. For an analogous example, a town is automatically notable; the mayor or chief executive of the town council is not unless the town is of considerable size and importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that one doesn't lead to the other, but I think you missed the point. LibStar was arguing that the article on the person shouldn't be kept because the institution wasn't notable; by withdrawing the article, he was implicitly conceding that argument, and that needed to be stated.  Not every factor to be considered need be definitive in and of itself.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I didn't miss the point, since I think it also needed to be stated, for the record, that the head of a notable institution is not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete*. He may be deeply involve in religion, education and writing, but truth is none of them are notable. I can understand why there are some keeps for this minsister, however if you break it all down, nothing notable and anyone can be involve in several different activities. Ray-Rays 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind elaborating? Being the head of a university is not something I'd normally discuss with "anyone can be involve (sic) in several different activities."  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with the nominator's view that the Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a "significant" institution for the purposes of that guideline. His leadership of that institution aside, there's nothing else really I can see that would also confer notability.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:40, 31 October 2011 (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.