Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Buntine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Buntine[edit]

Robert Buntine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Might not meet notability standards as per WP:BIO.  TOW  05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this article in the belief that a major obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald suggested notability. Within minutes of posting the bio it has been nominated for deletion. I was surprised anyone had been able to read it let alone read the references provided to gain an insight into Buntine's importance to education in Australia. It was my intention to create bios for his mother, father and grandfather given their notability as well. I would then create a "Buntine Family" article. At this stage I won't create any links to other pages that are relevant but will leave the article as an orphan until others comment. I trust that those who do comment know something about the subject of independent schools in Australia and in particular the sport of rowing ... I have noticed this is often not the case in these discussions. In regards to rowing the importance of Buntine's coaching of future Olympians needs to be considered but I'm loathe to waste my time adding this topic when the article is under threat. Castlemate (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added links to the many international rowers who were influenced by Buntine as a coach. I hope someone with knowledge of King's old boys from this category will add their names to the list. Castlemate (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a confirmed non-deletionist of anything, I must, however, strongly defer to the superior comments made regarding this articles subject, and as it pertains to WP policy, by @Mendaliv: and therefore change my opinion from keep to neutral. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't bring myself to believe, nor can I find any evidence, that SMH changes its editorial policy when it comes to publishing obituaries, no matter who has written them. Therefore, and when considering this source as valid, this articles subject meets the basic criteria, in my opinion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Since he is dead the bar for providing actual citations is lower. I am confident that more citations are in the wings and that this article should therefore not be deleted. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality check (UPDATE: Delete) - I don't doubt that Buntine was an outstanding coach and a great mentor to many young rowers, but he does not fit into WP:TEACHER, and I don't see much by way of a more general assertion of notability. Aside from the SMH obituary, the sources are either primary (published by various schools), or don't mention him at all (bio pages for Olympic and other rowers, SMH article about his brother in law). The only independent, pre-death source is a report that mentions him in one line as a coach of a victorious school crew, which I would argue does not meet "significant coverage". I am not familiar with the weight newspaper obituaries carry as evidence toward GNG, so I'll refrain from !voting for now, but there is certainly no "lower bar" for providing citations merely because he is no longer alive. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yeti Hunter: I would think instead of teacher this articles subject falls more within Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Olympic and Paralympic Games (Why isn't rowing included on this list?) as his notability in the Rowing (sport) is quite accomplished. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers @Picomtn:, after posting I did think that WP:NSPORT would be more applicable. Having reviewed that policy, I am less convinced of Buntine's claim to notability. See e.g. WP:NTRACK, which has a notability guideline for track-and-field coaches, saying they are presumed notable if they coached olympic or world championship athletes during their period of accomplishment. Although Buntine coached numerous rowers who went on to become olympians, he only coached them during their school years, not as olympians or world champions. Even this claim is not supported by the references given in the article (the Geelong College obituary does not mention any olympic rowers by name, and none of the citations for the olympians mention Buntine); it thus appears to be original research. Suggest this entry would be more appropriate for a geaneology and family history wiki such as Familypedia. –Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the comparison to Steve Gladstone, coaching for many years at a top US university (particularly one renowned for rowing prowess) is a big step above a high-school coach in assumed notability, even if college-level rowing is not "the highest level" of the sport. Gladstone has top-level sources (eg NYT) with non-trivial coverage of his coaching various Ivy-league crews, so he is on very solid ground with the GNG. I'm not so sure about Buntine where the only GNG sources are obituaries; I would like to get an experienced editor or two to comment on how obituaries are generally treated w.r.t. notability.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Yeti Hunter: Thank you so much for your very constructive comments, however, using the guideline for track-and-field coaches, I believe, is not appropriate for this articles subject and, instead, WP:NCOLLATH should be used and that says: coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. So then the question becomes has this coach been the subject of non-trivial media coverage? And the answer to that is yes as evidenced by his obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald [1] that says: He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College. Next, and as evidenced by the facts, during his years at Newington College, where he was the rowing coach, 7 of their rowers became Olympic medal winners. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/bob-buntine-beloved-teacher-coached-rowers-to-historic-victories-20140530-zrsyh.html
@Picomtn: Buntine was not a college-level coach. I have dropped a note at WP:EAR to ask about using obituaries as a basis for notability; will weigh back in after getting advice there. Cheers, Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hi @Yeti Hunter: Now I’m really confused. With Geelong College saying Bob Buntine is best known as a teacher and talented rowing coach at Newington College, Sydney where he was Deputy Headmaster for over 20 years until his retirement in 1996. [1] and The Sydney Morning Herald [2] saying He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College, how can it be stated that he was not a college-level coach?

References

  1. ^ http://gnet.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au:8080/wiki/BUNTINE-Robert-Walter-1929-2014.ashx
  2. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/bob-buntine-beloved-teacher-coached-rowers-to-historic-victories-20140530-zrsyh.html
@Picomtn: WP:NCOLLATH refers to "college" in the American sense, ie tertiary education institutions. While some of Buntine's schools might have "college" in their name, they are actually high schools - not directly comparable. –Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am advised that obituaries are generally considered ok only if published in the main body of the paper, by employed journalists. This is not the case, and in any case the content of the obituary does not point to any assumed notability under WP:TEACHER or WP:NHSPHSATH. Therefore, delete (I'll repeat my suggestion to migrate to a genealogy wiki like Familypedia, for which this content seems perfect with multiple family connections mentioned.). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG having a substantial body of non-trivial coverage in mainstream sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NHSPHSATH. We've got an obit in the Sydney Morning Herald that's clearly not a reliable source. When the SMH prints a news article about a recently deceased person, rather than an obit placed by a third party, they appear to carry the article in the mix with their other main articles. The dedicated obituaries page where this appears is within the SMH's "Comment, Opinion, Writers" section, which consists of opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and obituaries. This indicates that obits published in that section are reader-submitted, presumably paid for, and not subject to editorial oversight or journalistic writing in the same way that a main article would be, and therefore it's inappropriate to consider it a reliable source. WP:NHSPHSATH applies, rather than WP:NCOLLATH, because, while Buntine was a coach at Newington College, that school is a boarding school for boys, and not a post-secondary institution, which is the level of athletics NCOLLATH was designed to address. If we consider this either within the scope of GNG or NHSPHSATH, we have a case of a gentleman who does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is ill informed. The SMH does not publish paid obituaries. Obituaries and death notices are quite different things. The Herald published an obituary of Robert Buntine. If you go to the Herald website to "Comment" and drop down the box "Obituaries" you will see where the Buntine obituary was published. It has the most recent obits and this statement: "Obituaries are written by Herald staff or contributors, but we welcome information from relatives and friends. Contact the obituaries editor on (02) 9282 2742 or [email protected]. Click here for information on death notices, finding archived obituaries and buying reproductions of published Fairfax content." That was where and how the obituary was published. You may not agree with its decision to print certain obituaries but please don't make up theories about editorial oversight at the SMH that have no basis in fact. As for rowing there are many ways to proceed to Olympic selection post secondary school but wether Newington is one type of school or otherwise is irrelevant. One fact remains and that is no fewer than seven rowers coached by Buntine won international honours in that sport. Castlemate (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Herald staff or contributors" - the Buntine obituary was apparently written by David Roberts, Jon Wickham and Michael Smee. All three are colleagues of Buntine's and not staff of the SMH; Roberts is head of the Newington secondary campus, Wickham was headmaster at Kings and Smee was headmaster at Newington; Wickham and Smee gave eulogies at his funeral (see Newington newsletter). The eulogy was not staff-written, and thus is on thin ground for GNG and independence from the subject. WP:NHSPHSATH requires coverage to "clearly" go beyond routine, and this does not do so. Neither does the fact that a number of his school rowers later went on to have successful sporting careers confer notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald, Sydney's major daily paper, were happy with the qualifications of the contributors and it was not a paid obituary. An obituary does not come out of thin air and who better to write it than an archivist (you have the wrong David Roberts) and the headmasters of two of the most distinguished schools in the country both honoured by the Order of Australia. All I ask is that contributors to this discussion get their facts right ... this was not a paid obituary. This was a substantial obituary written in a substantial newspaper about a substantial teacher/coach who played a substatial role in the sporting lives of seven substantial international/Olympic medalist. This is not a trivial life nor is it a trivial obituary that supports it. Castlemate (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying it was a paid obituary, and certainly nobody is saying Buntine's life was trivial. I think of my own high-school rowing coach and what a remarkable impact he had on my life. But is he notable for Wikipedia? The obituary did not appear in the main section of the paper, and was not written by SMH journalists. That makes it at best borderline WP:ROUTINE, and for a high-school coach we need better than borderline. The seven olympic medalists may be notable, but Buntine does not WP:INHERIT that notability - he has to be independently notable. I'm afraid it does not look like he is. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared in Timelines which is the main obituary section of the paper. Please desist from saying otherwise as it is wrong. The vast majority of obituaries in the Herald are not written by SMH staff but by other contributors. The compararison to your teacher is trivial as you do not assert that he had an obituary printed in a major city based daily paper and he did not coach those that went on to Olympic careers. Throw all the Wikipedia conventions at this topic that you can find but stop incorrectly asserting that this is somehow a less than normal published obituary in the SMH. It is what it is ... an SMH Obituary.Castlemate (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's in the main obits section of the paper's website, and not written by a journalist with the paper. That's not a reliable source. The question of whether it's paid or unpaid is only one factor in the analysis of whether an obituary is a reliable source. Coverage in unreliable sources like this sort of obituary will not be seen as contributing to the significant coverage prong of WP:GNG. Furthermore, as has been noted, this gentleman was a rowing coach at a primary or secondary school, which means that WP:NCOLLATH does not apply. WP:PROF hasn't been shown to apply either. From the guideline: School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. Rather, they are evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession. There is no sport-specific guideline for rowing, though this doesn't really matter, considering the sport-specific notability guidelines only refer to professional athletes; school athletics are, by definition, at the amateur level. As far as Olympic-level participation, my understanding here is that Buntine was never an Olympic rowing team's coach or trainer, but had people he coached or trained go on to participate in the Olympics later in life. That does not confer notability either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source-by-source breakdown from what's in the article, and why I would advise the closing admin to discount the !votes that merely say he has significant coverage:
  1. "Bob Buntine: Beloved teacher coached rowers to historic victories": Unreliable obituary. Moreover, indicates that Buntine never coached or participated in the Olympics himself.
  2. "Buntine, Walter Murray (1866–1953)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his paternal grandfather. Does not mention the article subject at all.
  3. "Buntine, Gladys Selby (Jim) (1901–1992)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his mother. Does not mention the article subject at all.
  4. "BUNTINE, Robert Walter (1929-2014)", Heritage Guide to The Geelong College: Short memorial article hosted by a former employer. It does rely on the SMH obit, which harms its independence, but it's a secondary source, so it would probably contribute to the coverage under GNG.
  5. "Inspirational high-flier": SMH book review. Does not mention Buntine whatsoever.
  6. "King's wins rowing after 47 years": Coverage of the King's School (secondary school) rowing team, not of Buntine himself. Buntine gets mentioned in one sentence. Does not contribute to GNG, does not contribute to WP:NHSPHSATH.
  7. The King's Herald for 21 March 2014: Unreliable school newsletter. These are essentially marketing materials for donors and parents. Probably not independent coverage.
  8. Google.com.au: Google's landing page has nothing to do with this article.
  9. Australian honours for Michael Harvey Smee: Doesn't mention Buntine whatsoever.
  10. "Great Master, Educator and Coach brought victory across GPS Rowing": Unreliable school blog post. Not independent coverage. Does not appear to provide significant coverage either, and certainly nothing that other sources don't also provide.
  11. Rowing Australia profile for James Chapman: Does not mention Buntine.
  12. Olympic record for Robert Jahrling: Does not mention Buntine.
  13. Olympic record for Matthew Long: Does not mention Buntine.
  14. Olympic record for Geoff Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  15. Olympic record for James Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  16. Olympic record for Steve Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  17. Australian Olympic Committee profile for Richard Wearne: Does not mention Buntine.
  18. Broughton House history page: Does not mention Buntine.
At best we have one source we might call reliable, secondary, and independent, but which I doubt the coverage could be called significant. This high school-level rowing coach simply does not meet GNG. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since nobody else has added to the discussion, I will just comment for the closing admin that every "keep" argument has boiled down to two main themes:
  • He coached now-notable rowers when they were schoolboys, therefore he is notable (a violation of WP:INHERIT)
  • His obituary was published in a major newspaper, therefore he passes GNG (not true as the obit was written by Buntine's colleagues, failing WP:INDEPENDENT and thus WP:RS; also, non-staffwritten obits are usually considered WP:ROUTINE).
In any any case, the article fails to make an assertion of notability - all Buntine's achievements as a high-school teacher, headmaster, deputy-head and sporting coach, whilst noble, are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The continuing misinformation of contributors in this discussion is growing very tiring. Others have added to this discussion since the last contributor commented and have indeed added and reconsidered Keeps. Yeti Hunter clearly knows nothing about the obituaries in the SMH as they are often written by non-staff ... they are often written by people who knew the subject. The Buntine obituary was written by David Roberts, former Director of NSW State Records (1998-2008), Michael Smee OAM a retired headmaster, Dr Timothy Hawkes OAM a current headmaster. Yes they knew Buntine but unlike this discussion knowing something about what you are writing is usually considered a bonus in the wider community. The obituary used is in no way second rate. The SMH is still the paper of record for the city of Sydney ... it is still a lot more reliable than Wikipedia. Others may quote any Wikipedia policy they like but the number of Keeps on this page say it all. A schoolmaster who has coached the number of international champions that Buntine coached is notable. He was not an Olympian nor an Olympic coach. He coached schoolboys at the highest level of schoolboy rowing. If you need to justify it then develop a policy to do so but there are more people in this community who want this bio in than there are those that want it out. I only ask whoever closes this discussion to do so with a great deal of care as much of what you read on this page is Nonsense. Castlemate (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you could refrain from insulting my (and others') good-faith contributions to this discussion. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been shown to be notable enough. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although a consensus to keep is present, the arguments against keeping the article are stronger and mention relevant policies and guidelines. — Music1201 talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus to keep, just a reluctance on my part to engage with naked contradiction. Most keep !voters have merely asserted that it passes GNG with no discussion. One commenter above even suggest that the article has good potential for expansion (per WP:HEY) - how exactly? No matter how much detail about Buntine's high-school teaching and coaching career is added, he will remain fundamentally non-notable. WP:NHSPHSATH requires high-school athletes (and presumably, coaches) to have coverage that "clearly" goes beyond routine, and is independent. The SMH obituary on which the argument for notability rests is neither. All the other sources are irrelevant for GNG, and the fact that it is well written and wikified has no bearing on notability - WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK come to mind. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Buntine appears to have been an important person, but I don't think notable. As per above, the obit in SMH was written by collegues and is the main source of info. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I should go into a bit more detail. I think that all of the keep arguments have no grounds. The arguments towards keep consist of:
1) He coached rowers who went on to become olympians (this is also true of my netball and swim coaches).
2) The obit in the SMH makes him notable. (as per Yeti Hunter - violation of WP:INHERIT). I also know people who have made it to the Age/SMH. I don't think they are notable. If this makes a person have significant coverage then I and many people I know would be eligible for a Wikipedia page.
3) Furthermore, there seems to be a slant in the article towards subject's genealogy, which does not make him any more notable. Refs include fam history sites and author wanted to make article on family (see WP:BIOFAMILY). Article starts off with "third generation Australian" mentioned. He may have notable relatives, but this does not make present subject notable.
Finally I would like to stress that if this person is notable, then most people would be. For example, one of my relatives has taught many famous and influential people, one good example is actor Cate Blanchett, but also the sons and daughters of European, American and Chinese diplomats and politicians. He has written text books that sold very well and also has been in the newspaper many times. He's also worked as a journalist and co-ordinating unit lecturer at a major Australian university. He is from a very wealthy and influential family in a region and who were also some of the earliest settlers and were crucial to the development of that region. He is also related to the Murdoch family. He also lived on the same street as Julian Assange and John Safran. I could go on. He will never get a Wikipedia page. This person is not notable but he is still important to many people, just as Buntine was important to his colleagues and students. As per Yeti Hunter, maybe Castlemate could move this page to another place on the internet. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it makes me a ghastly inclusionist (not an accusation often thrown my way), but I've got to say your relative sounds at least potentially notable there. Also, I have been reading the Herald (and the obits) for years and I've never seen someone get a published obit who was not at least marginally notable. Can you provide one for a person who is unquestionably non-notable? I doubt it. Frickeg (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Frickeg, and I completely see your point! However, I believe that the best arguments on delete discussion pages are backed up by Wikipedia's notability guidelines (Wikipedia:N). Sorry if I caused any undue injury. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No undue injury at all! My point does go to WP:GNG since I believe in some cases a single, very reliable source is sufficient (especially for subjects where other sources are not likely to be online), but I understand others see things differently. Frickeg (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's a lot of discussion about whether the Sydney Morning Herald obituary is to be regarded as a totally reliable source. However, still, that doesn't change the fact that said piece appears to be literally it as far as justifiable sources go. The rest of the numerous citations made in this article, as above users point out, are not appropriate. The Canberra Times report mentions Buntine in passing, in only one sentence no less, without giving details. The King's Herald newsletter may discuss his career in depth, yes, but its not at all your standard reliable source. Multiple citations such as the reference to the Australian Olympic Committee don't even mention Buntime's name. Beyond mere legalistic applications of Wiki rules, it's the spirit of the rules that's most important: What can one build a good article on if its subject doesn't have significant source coverage? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per TNT. This is hopelessly promotional and full of unsourced content, and would need to be completely rewritten to comply with policy. Zoiks. A loving tribute but very very far from anything that should exist in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show that this person passes Wikipedia notability guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 00:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments: 1. WP:HEY is not merely about future prospects for an article; the essay is more about how it has been improved despite efforts to delete it. 2. Being the headmaster of not one but two prestigious prep schools (or as they call them independent schools in Australia) ought to mean something for notability. 3. Closing admin, this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I plead guilty to having boring reasons to keep! 4. An obituary in a paper of record, if it provides significant coverage can be sufficient, along with three or more other ("multiple") sources, to prove a dead person's notability (WP:BLP requires higher standards, in effect). Some of the sources didn't mention him, so I'd seek better sources. 5. If he had coached a single Olympian, I'd say, "meh", run of the mill coach. However, he coached several future Olympians, which is notable in itself. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality Check: Before an administrator tears down this "well written and wikified" bio please consider the inconsistency of notability in Wikipedia. I have just wiki linked Jim Buntine as Bob Buntine's mother and have discovered that Arnold Buntine, his father, has a bio as well. I wrote his mother's bio based on the assumption that her entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography gave her notability. Before you scream WP:INHERIT please stay with me as I'm not talking about inheriting notability although Wikipedia is riddled with. I didn't write a bio for his father because I knew that the deletionists would call for its removal within minutes, even though he is a notable headmaster. I then realised I didn't have to write the bio because it already exists due to the fact that Arnold played four (yes just four) games as an Australian rules footballer with St Kilda in the Victorian Football League in 1918. Now that is truly non-notable but nobody is calling for its deletion. Sadly given the poor standard of contributions and editing on Wikipedia nobody has realised that Arnold is in fact Dr Martyn Arnold Buntine [1] Headmaster of Geelong College. I'm sure that when I add the excellent reference that I have used here you will want the pre-existing bio deleted. It will be derided as secondary and not independent. For consistancy you will have to call for its deletion. I won't bother pointing out all the erroneous comments that have made recently but I will suggest that before you vote maybe you could read the article to see the improvements that have been made and the references that have been improved. But please no more anecdotes about all your friends/relatives who have had SMH/Age Obituaries written about them but aren't notable. Although I'm very keen to read about the netball and swim coaches who have not been notable but have coached Olympians. Who were the Olympians and how many of them were there. I'd like to write their bios just in case. Share this with us so we can debate their notability out in the open. Tell us who these strange hybrids are ... important but not notable. Most importantly could someone please tell the Sydney Morning Herald not to use "beloved" in the title of an obituary. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable. Semantics at Olympic levels. Thank you all for your good faith comments its been great fun sparring. Castlemate (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 2nd week attracted a lot of "keep" comments and the 3rd week attracted a lot of "delete" comments. Relisting again to see where we're heading.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to draftspace (see below). Firstly I am a little taken aback at all the invective being hurled around here, and at aspersions being cast on the SMH obits. The Herald is one of the major newspapers in the country, and full, published obituaries (no matter who they are written by) are clear evidence of notability, even if people want to quibble about the reliability of the (in this case rather distinguished) authors. The SMH does not publish obituaries of people it does not consider sufficiently significant (there are plenty of very notable people who never get them). Bearian above makes excellent points. I would also point out that there are likely to be a lot of print sources for this kind of thing that have not been consulted above. Frickeg (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [gnet.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au:8080/wiki/BUNTINE,%20Dr%20Martyn%20Arnold%20(1898-1975).ashx?HL=buntine BUNTINE, Martyn Arnold (1898-1975)]
With respect to Bearian and Frickeg, I have to disagree:
  • Buntine was a headmaster only once (at Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange, NSW) and only deputy head at one of the two prestigious Sydney schools he taught at.
  • A review of the SMH obit section] suggests that it does frequently include people who, while having led interesting and noble lives, do not establish a clear assertion of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. See e.g. Mother of seven had to venture so often into the unknown, an eloquently written farewell from a son to a mother.
  • Coaching schoolboy rowers who went on to become Olympians years later does not confer a presumption of notability. At any rate, this fact is unverified OR. The sources only say that Buntine coached un-named future Olympians, or that such-and-such Olympians were alumni of Kings or Newington. Neither the SMH or school newsletter obituaries make any mention of coaching future Olympians.
If print sources are available that indicate a notabilty not evident in the online sources, I would gladly change my !vote. But the notability guidelines at WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:TEACHER do not suggest that such a presumption is justified. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, I stand corrected. I hadn't seen that obit, and a closer look through the obit page does suggest these things are not uncommon (though by no means the norm). This throws me a bit - I've been using SMH obits as a good yardstick for notability for years now. My suspicion is that this is a recent development (cuts to journalists, perhaps?), but I may be wrong on that too. I'll have to consider this, so for the moment consider my !vote above less emphatic than it was. Frickeg (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went into this wanting to vote keep, but I can't justify it. I searched through Australian newspapers on NewsBank and the only hit that was more than a passing mention was the SMH obit that has already been noted in this discussion. After reading through the analysis of that obit here, I don't think we can consider it independent, which is what the GNG requires. And without that obit, I don't think it can be said that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space. There seem to be a number of factors. First, there is no assumed notability in the coach of a school team; it has to be proven by reliable sources. It's only college level coaches of important teams who can generally be assumed to be notable. Second, the SMH obit is not a reliable source. Reliable obituaries do not use the sort of extravagant language used here. There are only a few papers whose obits can be unquestionably used: for the 20th century, I know of only the NYTimes and The Times of London, though there probably are some non-English language ones also. Third, the notability of some members of a family does not make others in the family notable, nor does it make the family as a whole notable unless the family has been written about as a family. Fourth, there is no consistent practice here about the notability of headmasters of major schools, but we have been relatively reluctant to accept such articles except for the most famous. From the articles on them, I doubt that Wollaroi College is that famous, but it is possible that Newington College is--unfortunately, he was just a temporary headmaster. I'm making a guess here that his career as a coach may jsut possibly be important enough that other sources can be found, but probably at present the best course is to move to Draft space DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a compromise I can support. Frickeg (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (moved from keep) as per DGG. The SMH source, as well as being unreliable, is pretty much the only coverage Robert has received. Fails GNG, but I think we could try moving this to draftspace. Omni Flames let's talk about it 03:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the article and the information referenced above, WP:EVENTUAL would seem likely for WP:ANYBIO point 2 ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus: Not sure there can be another result at this time. Just stopped to check out the oldest open AFD and perused.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:15, 9 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Buntine&oldid=1138307047"