Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa MacFarlane

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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa MacFarlane[edit]

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

Not notable educator per WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The mentions that exist are routine and don't confer any sort of notability. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests she is notable. Not seeing anything in Google Scholar suggesting she has a significant citation count, so she fails PROF.--Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep She is the principal of a well-known and prestigious school, and therefore passes WP:PROF#C6. Previous principals (e.g., Thomas Hassan, Tyler Tingley, Benjamin Abbot, etc.) all have articles on Wikipedia. She qualifies for WP:PROF#C6 again as she was the provost and vice president of academic affairs at the University of New Hampshire—a major university. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C6 applies to colleges and universities, but this is a secondary school. Lesser positions, such as vice presidents and provosts, are specifically not covered by C6. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C6 applies to any major academic institution and it need not be a college/university (e.g., a federal lab), and Phillips Exeter Academy is a pretty famous school. Provosts of major universities can also qualify C6. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you read C6, it becomes pretty clear that Exeter Academy in no way fits any of the criterion spelled out there. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says sometimes qualify, perhaps if they meet GNG, which Lisa MacFarlane doesn't. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" major academic institution ": I would consider Phillips Exeter to be a "major academic institution," as one of the oldest and most prestigious American private high schools, founder of several interscholastic groups, etc. — Peapod21 1:34, 4 April 2017

Read the detailed notes below: "of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society". Kharkiv07 (T) 01:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"etc." Previous principals of said schools have Wikipedia pages. They clearly show that the school is important enough for each principal to have a Wikipedia page. —Peapod21 2:14, 4 April 2017

No, it doesn't, and that's a non sequitur. Those articles must stand on their own sources and own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heads of secondary schools are only notable if the school is prominent. This one is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

What is that based on? Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent, see above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:PROF per nom. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't see any, do you have any non-routine, substantial coverage? Kharkiv07 (T) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I've added some refs to the entry already but the truth is there is so much coverage out there, particularly related to MacFarlane's handling of sex abuse scandals at the school, I exhausted my month's allotment of free Boston Globe articles just beginning to browse through it all. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd be willing to call it a pass of WP:PROF C6 based on being principal/headmaster of Exeter or a similar school (Andover, St. Paul's, etc.). However, I think she also passes GNG based on ongoing and substantial coverage in the Boston Globe and AP etc.--Jahaza (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation count and WP:PROF more generally are the wrong criteria to use for principals of high schools, most of whom are non-notable, and I don't think WP:PROF#C6 is a good choice for these people (allowing it would open the floodgates to all principals of US public high schools, many of which could make a case for being "major" in some sense). We should use WP:GNG instead. But past precedent suggests that schools at the level of Exeter are exceptional in this respect and that their principals generally pass GNG. And in this case the in-depth coverage of her in major newspapers shows that she does pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Head of school at Phillips Exeter Academy, article is reliably sources (despite dratted Boston Globe paywall. Why are we arguing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2017 (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.