[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Kerr-Dineen

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 redirect to Oundle School. This is complicated, with the reliability of UK Who's Who a key factor as so many keeps are in part reliant on that. Given that consensus, there is no other significant factor present here to keep Kerr-Dineen's article. However, nor is there BLP issue sourcing that merits delete. As such, the article history is under the redirect should anyone want to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 01:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kerr-Dineen

[edit]

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

Sarah Kerr-Dineen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage about this person. Certainly accomplished, but the current sourcing is comprised of mentions, and PR pieces . Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 TT me 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as meets WP:GNG, though the article isn't great with proper citation. But there are SIGCOV and not necessary for everyone to have in JSTOR or GScholar(Are we too much dependent on Jstor, GScholar and nytimes here?). --NeverTry4Me - TT page 09:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anyone else find it disturbing that we include the head of Oundle's bog-standard response following an Ofsted report (“This inspection report is an independent record of the work of every member of the staff community as evidenced in the outstanding quality of the outcomes experienced and shown by our pupils”) when almost exactly the same thing has been said by every head of every school in England? If you happen to be head of a busy bog-standard state-funded school, no one cares. I would feel more comfortable with Kerr-Dineen's article if it dwelt on her notable achievements rather than assuming that she's notable ex officio because Oundle is an important school. The article on Oundle_School contains a list of notable headmasters. Are all headmasters notable, or do they have to contribute something unique, or make a lasting impression in educational literature, histories, etc., or at least in national newspapers, to qualify as notable? Elemimele (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Who's Who entry clinches the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not arguing for delete; I think this is a keep too. But I wanted to register disapproval of the "head of major school" argument, on the grounds that I'd rather heads earn their notability than inherit it. In her case, clearly the editors of who's who believe she's earned it, and that's enough. I might have a grump on the talk-page about some of the content. Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither GNG nor NACADEMIC are met, and also a likely violation of WP:NOTCV. Being the head of a "major English private school" (what constitutes such a claim remains to be explained) doesn't make one inherently notable, since notability is in the quasi-totality of cases not inherited. Editors who cite the UK Who's Who are wrong about the reliability of the publication. On top of the fact that Who's Who directories are not reliable sources (per almost every discussion at RSN), and besides the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, this discussion at RSN based on a 2004 investigative piece by the Spectator has uncovered that UK's Who's Who has admitted in the past that it doesn't fact check every entry and corrections are only made upon mutual agreement - meaning that if a person says they studied in Oxford rather than in London, and they just ignore requests from correction from UK Who's Who (assuming anybody has lodged a complaint, which I find hard to believe since UKWW is behind a paywall), nothing is done. That means that UKWW cannot be considered a reliable source and cannot therefore count towards any GNG analysis. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just to add to my previous comment, the remaining in-depth coverage she receives is run-of-the-mill local press coverage from Oundle Chronicle (a town of 5,000 where she heads the local school) and from a 2009 East London and West Essex Guardian piece, from when she was the head of another school, which interviewed her with hard-hitting questions such as "Do you have any pets?" "What's the one thing you can't do without in the morning?", "What is your favourite film?". Great if you're trying to remember your forgotten password, not so great to prove notability. Pilaz (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because there have been some issues in the past with Who's Who does not mean that it is not a reliable verifier of notability. Wikipedia describes it as listing the biographies of '33,000 influential people', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Who_(UK). Kerr-Dineen's page can certainly do with some improvement. However the fact that the UK's major source of biographical data, which is a reliable source, has a section on her is evidence of notability for me. Suffolk J (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Suffolk J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Per WP:SOURCE: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. UK Who's Who has a poor reputation for fact-checking as per the Spectator piece and its own executives; 2 other editors concur with this assertion. Regarding your comment about the Wikipedia page saying they are "influential people", see WP:CIRCULAR: Wikipedia is a user-generated source and cannot be used to assert notability. Finally, we don't have an obligation to list people who are in a Who's Who on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a directory. Pilaz (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are enough sources to show notability, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the validity of the sourcing would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of issues like hyper local coverage and routine coverage I would say we do not have enough sourcing to truly pass GNG and we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she has an entry in UK Who's Who (A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing & Oxford University Press can be relied on to provide reliable sources for notability) Piecesofuk (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. See RSP entry.
      • It's about it being a source of notability: From the BBC: "Who's Who is among the world's most recognised and respected reference books. It has been published annually by A & C Black since 1897 and was the first biographical book of its kind. It contains over 33,000 short biographies of living noteworthy and influential individuals, from all walks of life, worldwide." The Wall Street Journal: What is it that really puts the stamp of eminence on a modern British life? Certainly not receiving a title in an official honors list. But during your lifetime, two things do count today: having an entry in "Who's Who" and getting asked to choose your eight favorite records on BBC Radio-4's "Desert Island Discs." Piecesofuk (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may be respected in the UK (it is) and the individuals may be influential (many are), but if the information is autobiographical and submitted by the biographees, it is WP:PRIMARY, a WP:SPS, and by extension not independent from the subject. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC both require secondary, independent sources. On top of that, Who's Who has a poor track record with fact-checking and corrections, which goes against WP:REPUTABLE's requirement of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so it cannot be considered a reliable source. All of this is reflected in the Wikipedia-wide lack of consensus on this source. Pilaz (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I agree with what you are saying. But we're not using UK Who's Who here for some questionable biographical information but just as a method to determine whether a person is deemed to be notable enough for an English Wikipedia entry. I think that having a UK Who's Who entry should be considered when determining notability. Piecesofuk (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Per the general notability guideline: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [...] Sources should be secondary sources. Who's Who is neither reliable nor secondary. Therefore it cannot be used to determine the notability of an individual. Pilaz (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It's a secondary source published by A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing & Oxford University Press, who are independent of the subject: they have no relationship other than deciding that the subject is notable enough for their publication. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If there's no community-wide consensus on reliability, it means you can't simply call it reliable and make it count towards WP:GNG. It's a WP:TERTIARY source which compiles autobiographical sources (WP:PRIMARY), by the way, not a secondary source. Pilaz (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unconvinced that being mentioned in Who's Who is enough WP:SIGCOV, as entries there are not independent on the subject and inclusion in the list is in half of the entries based not on one's personal achievements or notability but due to the holding of a title. As I don't believe that their criteria for the notability of a title is equivalent to Wikipedia's and see the source as generally unreliable, I support deletion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Kerr-Dineen does not hold a title. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Kerr-Dineen&oldid=1073856148"