Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Durham


 * 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. There is no consensus whether the subject has received enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Durham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Being a head teacher of a school is not sufficient to establish notability. Also, most of the information is unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. In general we do not consider headteachers to be notable just for being headteachers. The headmasters of most public schools appear in Who's Who by virtue of their office and always have done, but appearance in WW is not by itself a justification for notability. I would, however, take issue with the statement that the information is unsourced, since it is taken from WW, which is generally a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Thanks for correcting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia's scope is wider than Who's Who (the British version) so appearance there confers notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC).
 * I don't have an overall comment on the deletion discussion yet, but appearing in Who's Who is absolutely not an indication of notability. I was listed in Who's Who of US College Students simply because I had a high GPA in high school. Oh, wait, that's not why--it's because the trolled every single relatively decent scoring person in the US and said they were in Who's Who so that they would buy their books. At the adult level, they do the same thing--every person in a certain professional status or higher is marked as being in Who's Who, and then sent bunches of letters telling them about the listing, and what an honor it is, and wouldn't they like to spend thousands of dollars/pounds to buy books for themselves, their office, and all of their family? As Necrothesp pints out, most headmasters appear in the book. That is a far less restrictive definition of importance than our definition of notability. Unless independent sources that discuss the subject can be found, we still have absolutely no evidence of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand the difference between the US Marquis Who's Who of low repute, and the British and Australian Who's Who which are highly selective. I bet you are not in those. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
 * If nearly every headmaster gets in simply by virtue of being headmaster, they are not as selective as our notability policy. The only group of people who are automatically notable by virtue of their profession are politicians at the national level (and sometimes sub-national) and heads of major religions. All other people stand or fall based upon WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or whatever relevant notability guideline applies to them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only headmasters of prominent schools get in to Who's Who. See the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Notability is not inherited. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And it's not true to say that only headmasters of prominent schools get in. The headmasters of my alma mater, a relatively minor public school that most people have almost certainly never heard of, pretty much all have entries. The only one of them I'd consider writing an article about, however, is the one who got a CBE. It's a tradition stemming from the rather elitist origins of Who's Who that most public school headmasters get entries (just like all baronets get entries, despite the fact that after the first one who actually got the baronetcy most are non-notable as individuals and we don't have articles about them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- listing in British Who's Who (not US) is sufficient for notability under many precedents. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please site a Wikipedia policy or established precedent that this is the case. I'd like to see exactly when we abrogated our editorial discretion to that book. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the case and never has been. We have rejected many individuals at AfD who were listed in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please supply links to Afds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Bull****. People arguing that Who's Who is a sufficient demonstration of notability are the ones who need to provide links. So far no one who has argued to keep the article has provided a policy compliant reason. No where in our policies or guidelines is there a statement that Who's Who listing is a sufficient demonstration of notability, so the burden lies entirely on those who wish to assert that it is. Xxanthippe, I would appreciate some attempt to actually follow our policies/guidelines from you and others asserting this article should be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you supply one link (not that that would be enough to make your case)? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
 * I'm not an avid AfD follower, so I don't have a list at my beck and call. Why should I have to trawl through all sorts of AfD's, when policy is on my side? All you've cited is a handwave that absolves us of actually applying our own rules by stating "everyone in book X is notable". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I haven't got the inclination to trawl through past AfDs either. But claiming "he's notable because he's in Who's Who" without any further evidence is not a good case for retention. Neither is "Wikipedia's scope is wider than Who's Who". In some ways it is, in others it isn't. As I've already said we don't have articles on baronets just because they're baronets or heirs to peerages just because they're heirs to peerages; Who's Who does. It has been generally established over many AfDs that inclusion in national dictionaries of biography, like the Dictionary of National Biography, is sufficient to prove notability, but inclusion in Who's Who is not. It contributes to a case for notability, certainly, but it does not establish it. Usually, in fact, I'd support retention of an article based at least in part on a WW entry, but in cases like this - inclusion because public school headmasters are traditionally included - I do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (Who's who does demonstrate enough coverage). But note there was also a Sir Kenneth Durham who was chairman of Unilever from 1982–1986. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Who's Who, whatever the country, is not inherently notable on its own, otherwise we would just include every person without debate, and there is no rule for that. Who's Who is just one of multiple lines of evidence of notability. Since his claim is as a headmaster, check WP:Prof .. but none of the criteria seem to apply. There doesn't seem to be anything but Who's Who and that isn't sufficient alone, in fact WP:Prof shows non-notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Chairman-elect of HMC suffices by itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
 * The chairmanship of HMC changes every year. That means more or less every member (i.e. the head of every British public school) is probably chairman at some point if he remains in post long enough! Certainly not an argument for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Who's Who is acceptable as a source in the UK as it is a standard reference work stocked by any decent library. And the subject is quite a high-profile head with plenty of detailed press coverage such as Kenneth Durham: 'To develop and flourish, pupils need choice'. Warden (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Acceptable as a source" =/= "establishes notability". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Who's Who is a satsfactory source. It is selective as to who is included and is that at least an indication of notability.  WP:PROF deals with university-level academics, and is thus irrelevant.  Chairmanship of HMC also points to notability.  WE are dealing here with the head of a Public School (effectively a private high school - for non-UK users).  HMC is their national organisation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, as I said above, the chairmanship of HMC changes every year. It's effectively a "buggins' turn" system. Merely an honorary post that will eventually be held by any head who is a member for any length of time, just like a town councillor who serves for some time in a British town is one day likely to be mayor for a year. Just a figurehead and doesn't really mean anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't find a whole lot during my cursory search. This would suggest that perhaps a listing in Who's Who is not always an indicator of notability. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable individual.  Rcsprinter  (state)  @ 10:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hard to believe that Who's Who isn't considered a sign of notability, given the plethora of nobody college sportsmen Wikipedia is infested with, but even so - coerage in this position as headmastership of a notable public school confers notability in itself imo. As for the fact that the chairmanship of the professional body changes annually - I fail to see how that's an argument against notability; however it's decided he *is* chairman. StuartDouglas (talk)
 * I should have thought it was patently obvious why an annual "my turn next" chairmanship doesn't make someone automatically notable. It would surely mean that anyone who was a committee or board member for any length of time of any organisation deemed notable by Wikipedia that had this sort of chairmanship would be considered to be themselves notable, as they have probably served as chairman at least once. I think that's been disproved by quite a number of AfDs. After all, we don't generally even consider chairmen of local councils to be automatically notable, and they're often pretty big organisations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 21 August 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.