Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Woodbridge (educator)


 * 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. General consensus shows that the article should be kept. I was wrong, and I apologize about this. (non-admin closure) – XboxGamer 22408 talk 19:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

William Woodbridge (educator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG – XboxGamer 22408 talk 01:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep First principal/preceptor of a significant and prestigious secondary school, and therefore passes WP:PROF. Other principals of the same institution also have individual pages. Sources have been added. Peapod21(talk) 02:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But Peapod21 where do you see that WP:PROF covers high school principals? It does not. Maybe his textbooks might be of importance, but I don't think the position at a secondary school would. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF states that a person is notable if he/she has held a "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." It does not state that secondary school positions do not count, and I would consider Exeter a "major academic institution." Peapod21(talk) 18:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of whether he meets PROF (and he might), this colonial/war of independence era figure has 50+ book references in a quick google-books check. At the time one must note that secondary education, e.g. high school, was not a common thing - a 14 year old would typically be sent to an apprenticeship a few years earlier (10 or 12), not to school - the importance of a high school, in the day, was not that far off from a college.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:PROF is the wrong standard to use for 18th-century secondary school heads; it's aimed at late 20th and 21st century research scholars. We should be using WP:GNG instead. And book sources such as this and this demonstrate the reliable in-depth and independent coverage needed to pass GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage in history of the Phillips Exeter Academy, the National Cyclopedia of American Biography, and obituary (from genealogybank.com which, unlike newspapers.com, does not have clippings) show significant in-depth coverage. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (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.