Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Wheare


 * 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. Consensus was clear keep. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Tom Wheare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm really not convinced articles should exist about head teachers of private schools, even if the music building at the school is named after them. The building was designed by an eminent firm of architects so I'm quite happy to add something to the Bryanston School article and turn Tom Wheare into a redirect (as happened with Sarah Thomas (teacher)). Sionk (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the overall notability of his career, particularly being FRSA, is enough to pass in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I was under the impression that you applied and paid to become an FRSA. Hardly a great honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that he passes the notability test and disagree with Sionk's odd idea that heads of private schools should form a category about whom articles should not exist. GooglerW (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Really not convinced this should exist" is different from "Really convinced this should not exist". It is established by unchallengeable precedent that all articles on high schools are implicitly notable. Like Sionk, I don't see that this means all head teachers are implied to be notable too. However I don't read their comments as meaning that in some cases, such as this one where he's notable for other achievements overall, head teachers can't still demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I should have added the word "all" to my opening sentence. Some people who have been head teachers will meet the notability threshold. Most won't. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC).
 * People become a Fellow of the RSA by paying £14 per month. Are we really saying people can pay to meet WP:GNG?? Sionk (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Although such things go on, I didn't realise the RSA was party to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the RSA itself has ever misrepresented its fellowship. People just tend to assume that because it's got "Fellow" in it it's some sort of honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The payment of dues does not mean that all one needs to do to be a fellow is to pay the dues. I don't know this society in particular, but I know that, for instance, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences requires annual dues of its members ($50, I believe?) but that doesn't mean anyone with $50 can be a member. The American Academy in Rome similarly asks for $40/year from fellows, but you need to win the Rome Prize to be asked to give that $40. There are other examples at lower levels (Phi beta kappa), etc. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct, you have to submit an application explaining how you have demonstrated (and will demostrate) commitment to the values of RSA, which goes to an Application Board. But this is definitely not anywhere near 'being elected' on merit (as happens in some other institutions). Sionk (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 18:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Relisting for additional policy-based !votes, especially given Sionk's evidence that being a fellow of the RSA isn't necessary as prestigious as it first sounds. clpo13(talk) 18:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xxanthippe. Head of a national schools association. Also an editor. Being a head teacher is not a bar on the existence of a Wikipedia page, it is one indication towards notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep was Weak Delete -- the FRSA is the most important claim to notability. While the Headmaster position is important as is the appointment to the head of their conference, it's not in itself enough to me for WP:PROF and does not have the external reliable sources for GNG. I would have always thought that the FRSA position would be enough and as I noted above, having to apply and pay a fee isn't a deterrent for me to considering it notable. But spending 15 minutes trying to source notability in independent, RS, or get a list of all members elected in a year, etc. has come up absolutely dry. WP:PROF has decided that fellow of IEEE is explicitly notable, which elects about 300 Electrical Engineers in America a year. If RSA elected 300 fellows (across all arts and sciences in the UK) per year, then I would consider it an award similar to or rarer than IEEE. Same with if it elected 100 or 1500.  But I can't get any figures on the number of people per year; if it's 10,000 then it wouldn't be on par. Or if it elected 500 but most of the major figures in the art and research world in the UK were missing, then it would seem to be like a US Who's Who type listing: selective on the surface but not on the criteria for admission (payment). If anything could be found to support the RSA selectivity claim, I'll change my vote, but I can't till then. (btw -- the Royal Society, is different and definitely, clearly notable). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep, based primarily on the Music School naming and the number of fellows cited by -- I do think the FRSA notability is a core, not peripheral issue--, but not based on the chairman of HMC or deputy chairman of GDST. If there's not a subject-specific guideline such as WP:PROF to refer to then we need independent sources saying that HMC Chairman, etc., is notable and I don't see them in the article or elsewhere. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, you apply to become an FRSA and pay a monthly fee. You're then automatically accepted if you meet the criteria (which are pretty broad and basically boil down to you agreeing to support the RSA's aims; it actually says this on their website - they're not claiming to be anything they're not). How on earth is this a notable award? A notable award is one to which you're elected by your peers or appointed by your country, not one where you select yourself and then pay for it. That's just self-aggrandisement. So, you're basically saying he's notable because he's paid to put four letters after his name? That's ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is all getting a bit silly. The FRSA is a peripheral issue, mistakenly raised in his first post by Andy Dingley [for the record 2,723 Fellows joined and 3,375 lapsed in 2013-14 (p 16 www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/governance/rsa-impact-report-2013-14.pdf)]. Wheare's notability is primarily from his career/position in secondary education and his involvement at a very senior level, and continuing. Being Chairman of HMC and currently deputy chairman of GDST and governor of several schools is much more notable than being one of a few hundred IEEE Fellows; and the naming of the Music School is another sign of notability in his field (which is obviously not well known to many). I agree that the article needs amplifying but let's not get distracted by the RSA, which is not 'the most important claim to notability'. I don't think there were ever cogent grounds on which the article merited proposing for deletion. Note that WP:PROF is not relevant to this case - he is not an academic in higher education. GooglerW (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable; ( Music school named after him), the article's quality not withstanding. Jacona (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2015 (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.