Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Prescott

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Prescott[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears that the subject does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Most of the article is unreferenced. The two secondary sources cited mention the subject but are about the subject's institution and the subject's successor, not the subject. The Wikipedia article about the subject's institution does not mention the subject. Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Prof and GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Not a professor but highest appointed administrator.

Item 6 of Academic notability criteria Englishbloke27 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Englishbloke27 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should mention that you are the creator of the BLP. Do you have any connection with the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

My account didn't create this article. Englishbloke27 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it did with this edit. Perhaps you forgot? --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, indeed I did. My mistake. Englishbloke27 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Secondary school principals are generally not notable, except for those schools at the pinnacle of notability (Eton, say) or principals who have done something beyond their school to achieve WP:GNG-level notability. In any case, we need in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources, independent of the subject and his employer. WP:PROF#C6 definitely does not apply; that's for major universities, not secondary schools. Here we have no such sources in the article, and searching mostly finds local or occasional national news stories quoting him rather than in-depth coverage about him. A typical example: [1], which describes him as "former Bolton Wanderers professional footballer turned college principal" but does not go into any more depth than that before quoting him on some school issue or other. Searching for news of his football career found only a similar level of non-in-depth mentions. And in any case the article is written as an unsourced personal reflection and if kept would need to be stubbed far down to only material that can be verified from published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great feedback and explanation. Thank you! Englishbloke27 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Englishbloke27Do you have any connection with the subject that you should declare under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for checking. I have no COI. Englishbloke27 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.