Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Crawley (headmaster)


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Crawley (headmaster)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has an entry in Who's Who in Australia, the inclusion criteria of which is "People are included if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level." That by itself is enough to meet the general notability guideline in my book. Also has a few mentions in major news sources:, and . Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it meet general notability guideline or WP:BIO? In addition, minor mentions in news sources do not meet notability requirements.  red dog six  (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the news sources I provided do not prove notability, I was just showing that he does get some mentions in gnews. The reason I believe he is notable is because he is covered in Who's Who, which counts as the significant coverage that GNG requires in my book. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very few source of information, because in fact his done nothing notable to meet wiki standards Ray-Rays 20:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Being in "Who's Who" is not by itself satisfaction of WP:BIO though the bio details provided by the honoree can be useful in writing an article if they are shown by other sourcing to be notable. The three newspaper articles are passing references and do not furnish significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Entry in Who's Who in Australia plus sources suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Where in any notability criteria does it state that inclusion in a "Who's Who" is a standard for establishing notability and how are the sources significant? red dog six  (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the "Who's Who" publications around the world print bios of everyone who agrees to buy a copy. The bio is generally submitted by the person in question, and is thus not "independent." See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 3  Wikipedia is not a mirror of "Who's Who," and there is no inherent notability for every person the authors of such a publication chose to include.  Edison (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One has to distinguish different Who's Whos. The US Marquess Who's Who is a low standard publication. The British one is independent and reliable and so is the Australian one. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep. Crawley has been head of three notable schools (they all have Wikipedia articles) and deputy-head of another (also covered by Wikpedia). His listing in Who's Who in Australia also suggests notability. Who's Who in Australia is selected by an editorial panel and inclusion cannot be purchased. Castlemate (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Where in any notability criteria does it state that inclusion in a "Who's Who" is a standard for establishing notability? red dog six  (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. High school principal is clearly not enough for any WP:PROF criterion, and "Who's Who" is clearly not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this "Who's Who" clearly not sufficient? Yes, there have been many vanity publications using this phrase in their titles, but this isn't one of them, rather being a respected biographical encyclopedia. The best possible indication of suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia is inclusion in a reputable print encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, GNG requires multiple in-depth reliable sources, and this particular "Who's Who" is only one source. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going to argue that the headmasters of Eton and Winchester are not notable because they are only the headmasters of "high schools"? He appears to have been headmaster of similarly elite institutions in Australia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC).
 * The point of the general notability guideline is to determine whether a subject is suitable for an encyclopedia on the basis of what independent reliable sources say. When the available sources are the like of newspaper articles or coverage in books then we have to take a view about whether the coverage is multiple enough and significant enough for encyclopedicity, but when such a source is an encyclopedia itself, and is from a reputable publisher, then that decision has been made for us. This is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, so shouldn't be more restrictive than traditional print encyclopedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we going to delete these headmasters as well; Tony Little (headmaster), Ralph Townsend, John Lewis (headmaster), Ian Lambert? To the contrary, I would suggest that more profiles of Heads of schools are required given the influence they have on our communities. Castlemate (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm arguing that all headmasters are automatically non-notable, you're sadly confused. What I'm arguing is that they're not automatically notable by virtue of their office, even when the school they head is itself quite notable. Rather, we need evidence that they pass our general notability guidelines: there must be in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. So far, there have not been enough sources presented in the case of Crawley to convince me. For the four others you mention, some already do have sufficient sources, some are very badly sourced, and should either be deleted or (more likely) have their sources improved, but see WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that he is automatically notable by virtue of being included in the Australian Who's Who, which is a biographical dictionary of repute in contrast to some others. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Alright, I'll bite. Where does anything in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO say that someone is "...automatically notable by virtue of being included in the Australian Who's Who?"   red dog six  (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say say that someone is "...automatically notable by virtue of being included in the Dictionary of National Biography "? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I have added quotations from The Sunday Age and National Library of Australia catalogue references to his publications. Castlemate (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete My mother is in a Who's Who publication, and I regret to say that that doesn't make her notable. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR as well. Joefridayquaker (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:NSPORT! Please note that none of the keep votes have claimed he passes WP:AUTHOR. As to Who's Who, as has been noted above the Australian version is a respected publication, while there are many others that are not. Don't tar them all with the same brush. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have a point with the "broad brush reference. However, the lead section of the article states that "He is the co-author of two books on educational issues." Therefore, whether or not anyone "voted" in that manner, he is an author, and fails that subject's notability guidelines, along with dubious notability elsewhere. I'm just throwing it out there. Joefridayquaker (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was just trying to point out (probably in a manner that was over the top) that the SNGs (such as AUTHOR, NSPORTS and PORNBIO) are all 'trumped' by WP:N. Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, the entry in "Who's Who" is something, but there doesn't seem to be all that much else on Crawley that addresses him in depth. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete - Being in a "Who's Who" book, no matter of which country, does not contribute to satisfying WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO. Unfortunately, while the individual has written books, I still don't think this meets the notability standard.  ~  Pesco  So say•we all 05:11, 9 November 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.