Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen O'Kane

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. The consensus is pretty clear here. While this individual might have had an impact locally on schools, that is not enough to reach Wikipedia's standards for notability. There are many admirable people, doing great things and helping communities, who do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards which typically require recognition beyond that received in ones local area.

One question I'm left with with this closure though is why it is so much easier to be considered notable if one is a headmaster than a school principal. It's hard to see how many of these private school administrators meet WP:NACADEMIC. Maybe someone can inform me on my talk page about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Your second point is very valid. FedFoxEx (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O'Kane[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)

Non-notable BLP - school principals aren't considered significant under {WP:ACADEMIC} Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following:

Does not meet criteria at WP:NACADEMIC - no significant academic works, award, or scholarly associations. No substantial impact outside their profession or other works.
Sources do not constitute significant coverage sufficient of demonstrating notability per WP:BIO. Several are primary, and the reliable, secondary sources do not cover the subject beyond a trivial mention. This article is about storms, and only mentions the subject once while discussing another matter entirely. This link is dead, and the new link here links to an article about the local school getting some sort of traffic improvement, it again not focused on the individual but rather something else. This is the only source that demonstrates any notability, focusing entirely on the subject. However I do not think an article about a school principal on its own demonstrates a need for a stand-alone article. Rather, if the school is sufficiently notable, any defamation claim by its principal teacher ought to be included there, not solo.

In short, I recommend deleting because there is no criteria met either specific to the subject's profession or generally warranting inclusion of this article. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be argued that the subject fits into the seventh academic criteria, which is, "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The subject fits into this criteria; it was stated in the article that the subject assisted in bringing in a program to MacGregor State School to promote inclusion and multiculturalism. Additionally, it was also stated in the article that O'Kane fought to get the Department of Education Queensland to install a 'Drop and Go Zone' at the school which was essential for students' safety, as more than 70% of the 1300 students attend Macgregor State School are dropped off by car. This clearly demonstrates a 'substantial impact outside academia', as the subject clearly has fought for these to benefit the students at the school.

The second claim about the sources can also be refuted. The reliable, secondary sources clearly demonstrate notability, and it does not 'cover the subject beyond a trivial mention'. The first article listed is a long article / blog about storms. It is not a 'trivial mention', when clearly when talking about the damage of the school, there was a specific section in the blog of it. It included how the school the subject was a principal at was severely damaged and even included quotes from the subject that described the damage. This clearly is not a trivial mention, is it? The second article that Mr. MaxnaCarter described as dead is false. The link in the actual article clearly works, so the individual is once again refuted. Additionally, the article is not focused on 'traffic improvement', it is focused on a safe, drop and go zone for students. It was clearly stated in the article that 70% of the 1300 students attending arrived by car. The article focused on the addition of that, and mentioned how the subject was given the green light for the works to commence, after fighting for it. This is again, another important and substantial impact that the subject made. The third argument Mr. MaxnaCarter made was of the 'stoush' between the subject and school parents. The user stated that 'if the school is sufficiently notable, any defamation claim by its principal teacher ought to be included there, not solo.' This clearly demonstrates the user did not thoroughly read the article; the article clearly stated that the subject was allegedly defamed, not the school. Why should the defamation be included in the school's wikipedia page if it was clearly by the subject, and not the school?

It is clear this page has met the criteria of a person who has had substantial impact. The user's claims of the sources not having significant coverage are outright false. The sources state that the subject has clearly fought for items such as the drop and go zone which had a crucial impact for the 70% of the 1300 students at the school. The user described this as a 'traffic improvement', which is clearly incorrect as it had a substantial impact to the many students who get dropped off and picked up. Therefore, this page needs to be kept. FedFoxEx (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- No program that affects just one secondary or primary school is a substnatial enough impact program to show notability in that way. What you would need is sourcing in reliable sources that is sustained enough to show such is generally notable and that is not what the sources do here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability, establishing a 'drop and go zone' isn't in itself notable or a 'substantial impact outside of academia' Dexxtrall (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find anything useful in terms of sources. Agree with Dexxtrall about the proposed drop and go zone. Deus et lex (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete educational leaders below the tertiary level are almost never notable for such. The sourcing is not even close to showing that this person is one of the very, very extremely rare exceptions to that rule of thumb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johnpacklambert, I just want to say about this, is that the article created was more to be towards the subject's impact towards the schools rather than the educational side of things. So positive things like the drop & go zone, inclusion programs, and helping the school find a time capsule before, and some negative things which were the damages of the classrooms from the storms, and the after school care saga. So what I guess my point is that the subject is not written to be a famous educator that's very good at what they do/teach such as mathematics etc but the subject is more about the impacts he had on the schools. FedFoxEx (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a drop and go zone for a school, implementing inclusion programs at a partcicular school, and finding a time capsule are all things that are way, way, way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bar for notability of a high school principal is quite high, and this nowhere near meets it.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete analysis of sources don't demonstrate WP:PROF or WP:BIO is met. The advocacy for a drop and go zone hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello, I would say it's not just about the drop and go zone however. But the drop and go zone I would argue is a crucial improvement and was substantial, considering 70% of the 1300 students arrived by car and it was crucially important to ensure their safety by building it. The subject also advocated for the program that promoted inclusivity at Macgregor State School and other sources and events such as the after school care and 150 yr anniversary at Windsor State School. The sources mention that the subject contributed to these events like the drop and go, inclusivity program etc which were substantial impacts to the schools, and they were outside of the actual education (academia) the students received. FedFoxEx (talk) 04:37, 2 June 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.