Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Townsend


 * 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. assertion of notibility improved with additional reliable externals - consensus leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Townsend

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Biographical article of a school headmaster which does not demonstrate notability. Previously ProD'd but this was removed with only one of several issues contested.

Dr Townsend may be notable within a small academic circle, but there is no demonstrating of overall notability.

Being a headmaster of a school is not, in itself, notable.

While Dr Townsend has been involved with several wider programs, none of these have been large or influential organisation. For a headmaster of any school (public or state) involvement in these programs is simply part of the job.

While I recognise this is not enough to rule out notability, a Google search for Ralph Townsend does not provide any sources beyond those from the school, from social media sites, or from articles mentioning Dr Townsend in passing.

As it stands at the moment, a majority of the article is either a) providing an unsourced description of his teaching career, or b) listing the 10 schools involved in a partnership program. The single source in the article simply confirms that he is the Headmaster of the college.

I am sure that Dr Townsend is a good headmaster who has a positive influence on those around him. But sadly he does not have the notability required for a Wikipedia article. Guycalledryan (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Guardian article referenced in the article has significant coverage of Townsend, being about his reform programme for the school, and the Tablet article has him as its subject, but I don't know how much coverage there is beyond the one fact sourced to it (a snippet can be seen here). There is also an article in Country Life about him and some coverage in these news sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Headmaster of the second most famous private school in the world (the first being Eton College). Adequate notability. I don't have access to the Who's who (UK) but if he is in it that is an unambiguous keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, nominator. Are you going to tell us if he is in Who's who (UK)? You should know as you presumably checked that as part of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC). 
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep but stub. Headmaster of three schools is enough, and can be sourced. But the text of the article is essentially the same as his staff bio at Winchester. Archive.org only has the winchester page back to 2010 but it has been included as a link here since the creation of the article in 2007. I'm not certain it's a copyvio (if I were I'd tag it for a G12 speedy deletion) but I don't think it's appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * keep &mdash; he is in fact listed in Debrett's People of Today, which is at least as important as who's who, and possibly better, as one can be removed from it as well as added to it: "Dr Ralph Douglas Townsend." People of Today. Debrett's Ltd., 2011. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 18 Sep. 2011. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Headmasters of major public schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If Debrett's People of Today includes him in their list of Britain's most distinguished figures, then he is notable.   D r e a m Focus  10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Debrett's People of Today is a vanity publication with over 25,000 British entries - surely we are a bit more selective. People of Today's selection parameters are far more liberal than Wikipedia's notability criteria. The main problem with this article is that it is a direct copy from the school website. Some independent (of the school) content would solve many of its problems.John beta (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * query&mdash; i'm not disputing what you say, but i'm wondering in what sense you mean that debrett's is a vanity publication? &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he is the UK Who's Who, which nobody has accused of being a vanity publication? The copy-vio is an issue, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC).
 * He is in Who's Who, yes, and that is certainly not a vanity publication (although I have seen ill-informed editors describe it as such in AfDs). One is invited to be in WW - one does not apply or pay to be in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the same goes for Debrett's People of Today. John beta seems to be confusing these publications with certain others. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Phil Bridger, I'm not confused - you nominate yourself for inclusion in Debrett's People of Today (unlike Who's Who) Under this type of business model there is an expectation that people listed will buy a copy. That said, I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate business model, and certainly not a scam. John beta (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 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.