Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Nicholls


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Nicholls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Official at Cambridge University, only reference to the University itself. According to the deprodder, he is clearly notable, yet I cannot find any articles in the media specifically about him apart from a snippet on the Times Higher Educational Supplement and one article in the local paper about his appointment. I'm not sure this is tha "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. Number  5  7  10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, he is clearly notable. He is chief administrator (not just "an official") of one of the world's oldest and most prominent universities (and before that of two other major British universities: Warwick and Birmingham). He may not personally have a high profile, but he is notable by virtue of his office. And he does have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you could improve the article and add some references to show notability? If only the office is notable, then there should be an article on that, not the office holders. Number   5  7  10:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Holders of notable offices are themselves notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep. If he's in Who's Who then he is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
 * The only reference on the page currently links us to a list of news items. So, as it is all of this living person's personal details are not sourced, which means that the article should be deleted, unless it can be reliably sourced. Danrok (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - please remember to look in the obvious places such as Who's Who WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) why would it be obvious to look in Who's Who, and (b) why would I have a copy of such a book or an online subscription to it? I spent several minutes looking for online sources and found almost nothing. Even with Who's Who, is this still "significant coverage"? Number   5  7  11:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would it be obvious to look in Who's Who about a person in a prominent position in Britain today? Frankly, well, words just fail me... As to your second point, any library in Britain should have a copy of Who's Who and/or offer online access to it to members. Your not having easy access to a copy (i.e. not at the touch of a button) is not a good reason to nominate for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely if a current person is notable, there would be material about them in the online press. Do you really expect people to trawl libraries looking for books for references about someone currently in post? If words fail you, then you need to consider some serious changes to your attitude. Number   5  7  13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do expect people to do that. AfD nominators are expected to carry out WP:Before in a thorough and conscientious manner in order to avoid wasting the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk).
 * I read WP:Before, and it recommends doing online searches (which I did, and found almost nothing apart from the two links I provided in the AfD rationale), nothing about going to libraries to look through books. Even if this was the case, I would consider it incredibly unreasonable - if material about a current figure cannot be found online, then why would one expect to find it in a book? I can fully understand this being the case for a historic figure, but certainly not for now. Number   5  7  22:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't know that the Registrar of Cambridge University is likely to have an entry in Who's Who then you might wish to consider if you have enough knowledge of this area to edit usefully in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Well said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what we expect. The onus is on the editor nominating for deletion to check relevant major reference works to make sure the person is or isn't listed. Otherwise it sounds like a case of "I haven't heard of him so he can't be notable", coupled with "Google is the fount of all knowledge", both of which are exceptionally poor reasons for deletion. And it's not as if WW is exactly obscure. I would expect anyone nominating an article on a living British person to check WW before nominating for deletion, just as I would except anyone nominating an article on a deceased person to check Who Was Who, the DNB and The Times obituaries, inclusion in any of which confer likely notability. A large number of us do have access to these works. They are all online and they are all accessible online by members of most decent public libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really think that editors need to check Who's Who to find someone in the internet era, then something here is clearly broken. Number   5  7  08:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since WW is on the internet, I fail to see why. Heaven forfend that we should actually have to check a standard reference work! Far too much hassle, obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep notable enough for inclusion. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (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.