Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Black

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Black

Appears to be non-notable, but want to get others' opinions on this. Speedy delete if people agree that it is speedy deletable. --Nlu 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete, because I'm not sure what the current thinking is on being the headmaster of a school. None of the drama entries suggest notability within that field, so headmastering is the only thing that might set him apart from others. Joyous | Talk 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It has a photo of him: Image:ColinBlack.jpg (oops, didn't mean to put a photo in the Vfd), has 7 named contributors, and google returns 14,500 google hits. Whilst I struggled to find the bits that refer to the right Colin Black (after all, the Colin Black from http://www.colinblack.com/ is not this one, yet seems to be more notable than this one), the suggestion that he directed Andrew Denton in and of itself asserts notoriety. What we need now is some references to back it up. I am sorry, but I am too tired to wade through 14,500 links to find which one refers to this guy. Does look to be notable though. Zordrac 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Googling for "Colin Black" "Andrew Denton" returns precisely 6 hits: the only one which actually appears to relate to this claim of notability is, guess what, the Wikipedia article! So I'm afraid it fails WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't qualify for speedy delete, Keep. per Zordac (Notorious4life 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any claims to notability in this article are completely unverified. Ambi 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So why don't we ask them to verify it? If you can wade through the 14,500 google hits then you might be able to do it yourself. If it is true, then its notable. Zordrac 07:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask whom to verify it? And the AfD notice should be sufficient call for verification of notability. --Nlu 07:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The authors, of course. Zordrac 08:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I noted, the AfD notice should be sufficient. --Nlu 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: He's just a person doing his job. There are tens of thousands of headmasters. They all are esteemed by their student bodies and boards of trustees, but being a headmaster by itself does not give one a platform or profile above the school's own community. Therefore, again and again, the person is not referred to in a context other than his own job and therefore does not need explication in an encyclopedia. (We're not judging the person. We're judging whether the information needs to be present to help explain the world.) Geogre 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. Verifiable. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, while I began opposing this deletion because no valid reason for deletion was given, it is, in fact, a really valuable article. I would urge folks to taka another look at it. Trollderella 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet biography criteria.--nixie 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Which, after all, are guidelines, not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability is also relvant--nixie 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see why we need to include headmasters on wikipedia. --Roisterer 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see why we need to include chemistry, but, somehow, I live with it. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,He's more than just a headmaster!! He is a "prominent educator" that influenced the statewide policies on prevention of bullying and also notable for his dramatic nature!!
• Delete on the basis that someone called him a "prominent educator". (Petty, yes, but oddly reliable.) Deltabeignet 04:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CSD:A7 is policy. Denni ☯ 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't speedy deletion... Trollderella 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say, if an article should be speedy deleted, then that is also good ground to garden-variety delete it. --Nlu 07:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I read the article, and followed up the links (yes, Trollderella, I generally do unless the article itself makes a clear case either way). The subject is clearly as stated (no major problem with verifiability), but I can't for the life of me see which criteria he meets in WP:BIO. I have performed in three cathedrals, two concert halls and King's College Chapel, and worked with people like Humphrey Lyttleton, Richard Stilgoe, Yehudi Menuhin, Timothy West and Evelyn Glennie. I've been featured in the Times Educational Supplement and interviewed on BBC Radio 4 as well, but I would laugh out loud if anybody suggested I should have an article on WP. I know I set the bar higher than many others, but for me this chap falls below it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the bar is actually set by policy, not individual whimsey. As far as I can see, you agree that there is no policy reason to delete this, but feel like it anyway. Trollderella 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. I cannot see which parts of WP:BIO he meets. Which criteria do you think he meets? From my personal perspective I measure his claims to notoriety against my own (as a person I know particularly well, and feel falls well short of inclusion), but in the end I take WP:BIO as a guide. Why is that wrong? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As you know, WP:BIO is a guideline. It is not part of deletion policy. Claiming that something should be deleted because of it in the face of people who want to keep it is irresponsible. Trollderella 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternative view: voting to keep content which clearly does not meet the guidelines, which are backed by strong consensus, is iresponsible.

Alternative alternative view: we vote according to our interpretation of guidelines and policy, and sometimes differ. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Replace by an article on the guy from colinblack.com. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I happen to know the Colin Black that this article refers to. In all honesty though, his "story" is not dissimilar to many other headmasters etc that exist and would probably be of little benefit to anyone.

Careful with this guy's comment, he is the guy continuously vandalizing the Colin Black and Camberwell Grammar School articles. See 138.217.27.205 (talk • contribs). I wouldn't really trust any of his comments at the moment... --DWZ 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing special.  Grue  16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, precedent and consensus say that articles like this one that fail the WP:BIO guideline should be deleted. The one claim for notability is non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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.