Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster)


 * 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. There is a consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability. The indepth sources (epsom college and hereford anglican) are not independent (institutions he worked for), the FRSA is an award given to some 30,000 people at the moment (so not something which in itself is cause for newspaper reports or other indepth reporting), and looking for other sources only revealed further passing mentions or sources which lack independence. Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

*Merge probably with Epsom College, if not delete. A small health warning, the a membership of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference goes with the job in most private schools, and all these schools are private schools. Epsom College Malaysia needs an article. The link to Lambeth Academy leads through the United Church Schools Trust maze. Condolences to his wife after his recent sudden death last week. ClemRutter (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Run of the mill schoolmaster. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject complies with WP:N, as all the information in it can be referenced from reliable sources. Borthwick died a few days ago, and the national press has not yet printed the obituaries which will provide even more substantial coverage. It may be helpful to put this AfD on hold until then., I do not see your point about links. As it happens, Lambeth Academy has an article, not a very good one. You say Epsom College Malaysia needs an article, but that supposes it is notable, and I believe there is no longer a presumption that all secondary schools are. But where does any of that go? Membership of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference does not "go with the job in most private schools", but that also has nothing to do with notability. , "WP:Run-of-the-mill" is an essay, not policy, and the GNG has nothing to do with importance, it is simply about whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just flagging up that I was not prepared to defend this one all the way through AfD myself . On your comments I have struck through my vote. Membership of HMC goes to the school, and is given in the name of the current headmaster, though I suppose it could be withheld. Details like that can be pounced upon and used to discredit the AfD defence. I am currently spending a lot time on Articles for deletion/Lesmahagow High School where the silliest things are being disputed. (If you have time please join in). Lambeth Academy is one of many London Academies that needs a lot of TLC- and it will be possible to work it up, I'll put it on my watchlist and join in when I can be useful. Epsom College Malaysia will have the WP:N but finding the secondary sources will be a challenge. I would start by who gives them accreditation and take it from there. Greetings and good wishes from Kent. ClemRutter (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, surely the point about employers, close associates, and so on, is that they nearly always give a sanitized version of events. But if they are respectable, they do not need to be ruled out completely, they can still be relied on for factual points of detail, but not for opinion or for giving a balanced overview. That’s how I see it, and it’s a common approach. Moonraker (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant though. For AfD, we are talking notability, and for this we need independent sources. That an employer/organisation posts an obit of a (former) employee is perfectly normal and doesn't give any notability to the person involved (which doesn't mean that these obits can't be used once notability has been established of course). See WP:BASIC, the starting point of our biographies notability guideline, and especially the end of the sentence; "and independent of the subject.". The footnote which follows this explicitly states " nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members." Now, if independent sources (say, newspapers) would print an obituary of the person (a journalistic one, not one by the family or so), then indeed that would point towards notability. But your claim that "the national press has not yet printed the obituaries" is WP:CRYSTAL, we have no way of knowing if these will actually appear, and which each passing day this gets less likely. Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don’t dispute that, but the vast majority of the present sources are independent of the subject, and the ones you might question are only relied on for simple facts. As it happens, I should say the broadsheets are getting slow about producing obituaries, unless someone is a household name, when they probably have a draft ready. Moonraker (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which substantial sources are independent? Most sources are passing mentions, inclusions in lists of people, interviews about different subjects (not interviews about themselves)... Can you list the 3 or so sources which you believe indicate notability for him (i.e. independent, reliable sources with substantial, non-routine coverage of him?). Fram (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * let’s use the GNG definition of “Significant coverage", viz. it “addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”
 * You and I disagree on the Diocese of Hereford page, but to me it is clearly independent of the subject. I am not sure whether the Epsom College page is, but they are both relied on only to verify facts. Articles from The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian, and This Is Local London have more than trivial mentions, and there is an interview in Surrey Life. The Good Schools Guide and British and International Music Yearbook “address the topic directly”, and People of Today has a short biography. No doubt you would challenge all of those, but there we are. I don’t think there is any point in going further with this, other people will have their own ideas on notability, and I am busy in real life. Moonraker (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't access all of them, but a birthday entry in the Times is not really significant coverage, the article in the Independent is not coverage of Borthwick, just like this article in The Times is not coverage of him: interviews are considered primary sources, not secndary sources, and the interviews are not about him but his comments about a topic. Fram (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , see the GNG: “...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”. You are right about the birthday column of The Times, but it’s only leading educators who get included there. Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although sources are reliable notability is not attained under WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC).
 * , Thanks for agreeing the sources are reliable. I agree that Notability (academics) does not apply, he was clearly not a professor or an academic. That policy is about exceptions to the WP:GNG for people who get there by another route. The GNG is all that’s relevant here. Do you have a view on whether the sources fail to comply with that, in particular the short biographies in People of Today and hereford.anglican.org, the Good Schools Guide, British and International Music Yearbook, an interview in Surrey Life, articles in The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian, and This Is Local London? Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable but not independent enough or significant enough to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC).
 * There is nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC).


 * Delete - an accomplished education administrator, but does not pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please say how you arrive at that view? Please see the sources listed just above. Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I find these ex cathedra pronouncements distinctly un-wikipedian and unhelpful, as WP:GNG is so woolly anytime it is used it needs a reason. What are you trying to say? GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ClemRutter (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , then by saying, doesn't meet GNG, what I am saying is that the topic has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Seems pretty clear to me.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think what means is that there are a lot of references, so it would be helpful if you could say which in your view are not reliable sources, or not independent of the subject, or do not give any significant coverage. The WP:GNG defines all its terms, including “significant coverage”. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's fair, there's not a single in-depth reference from an independent source in the article. Searches did not turn up anything either. The articles are brief mentions (or interviews, which as primary sources, do not go to notability). Or, like his death announcement from the school, which is in-depth, is not independent.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the GNG does not require significant coverage to be “in depth”. More than a “trivial mention”, yes, and I do not see anything which is only that. Trivial must mean trivial. Note: WP:Basic criteria says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. And I still see reliable sources with substantial coverage, if it mattered. I think you have an argument about the school page, that’s one source we can ignore for notability. I did put a page from another school obituary in as an external link, and it might belong there, but even primary sources can be used to verify simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep for now. Headmasters do not generally get elected fellows of the Royal Society of Arts, nor do they have their birthdays listed by The Times, nor do they get their views solicited by major national newspapers (The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, ie all the major broadsheet stables apart from The Guardian/Observer). This is anything but run of the mill in the UK. Could revisit in 6–12 months, by which time there might well be obituaries to judge from newspapers and specialist education press -- all the major papers here are overwhelmed with the recent volume of deaths and are not noting people's passing in the usual way. The funeral is scheduled for mid January and might generate at least local press coverage, although considering the coronavirus restrictions may mean no-one can attend, perhaps not. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2021 (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.