Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Smith (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Smith (headmaster)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic per WP:TEACHER. This administrator (educationalist?) is not inherently notable for serving as a headmaster for a secondary school. KidAd (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that we have often considered headteachers of major public schools to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC #6, as does Who's Who (in which he features). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete He does not pass any notability criteria. Academic notability guidelines 6 applies to tertiary, not secondary eucation places. Even if it applies to all tertiary places is not clear, but we are not going to apply it to secondary education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree with JPL and disagree with Necrothesp here: Academic notability only applies to post-secondary educators and administrators, or to people who become notable for scholarly rather than educational or administrative work. We have kept articles on secondary school headmasters before, particularly ones of important schools, but through WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. So the question should be, is there in-depth coverage of Smith himself, or is it all incidental to coverage of the school? I looked but didn't find enough to convince me, and I'm dubious of the reliability of recent Who's Who publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that I have merely noted in a comment what AfDs have found in the past. So I don't really see how you can "disagree" with me! The British Who's Who is a notable and reliable publication and is held to be such by both Wikipedia and outside scholarly sources; unlike other similarly titled works it is not a vanity publication, and does not solicit entries or charge for them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A non-notable headmaster who fails WP:GNG.  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 20:27, 24 December 2019 (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.