Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Waterhouse (headmaster)

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 by mere consensus by WP:HEY. Bearian 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Waterhouse (headmaster)

John Waterhouse (headmaster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject falls short of WP:BIO. Running schools is not notability & no major contributions to the enduring historical record ExtraDry 03:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. AntiVMan 04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Please note that this is not a vote and so "per nom" adds nothing to the debate. At present this is a bare minimum article but the subject is highly notable for a number of reasons. It may take some time to improve the article as the appropriate references may not be on line. Public high schools in New South Wales came into existence in 1883 after Henry Parkes's Department of Public Instruction Act of 1880. Up until then secondary education had been largely Church and private proprietory schools. In 1883 eight high schools were established in Sydney and the regions. By 1900 only Maitland and Sydney had survived. This had a lot to do with the quality of those appointed to lead those schools. Waterhouse was the founding Headmaster of Sydney (if only interim until the arrival of Joseph Coates) and then the following year the founding headmaster of Maitland. This alone makes him highly significant in the educational history of NSW. Later in his career he was a long serving successor to Coates at Sydney Boys High School, arguably Sydneys most notable public boys school. Waterhouse is Australian born and was educated at an historic Sydney school, Newington College, and was an MA from the University of Sydney. He is consequently one of the earliest Australian born and educated headmasters of a major school in colonial NSW - if not the first. His own alma mater didn't have an Australian born Headmaster until 1931 and from that time all appointees to headship at Newington were Rhodes Scholars (hence holders of English higher degrees) until 1960. Further investigation of Waterhouse's ornithological and biological activities will also lead to greater notability but this will take some further reading at the Australian Academy of Science. It is time to move on from this never ending, and highly disruptive debate, about the notability of headmasters. Keep John Waterhouse, expand the article and as an example of a random act of kindness offer this notable subject a free hug. Maybe those wishing to delete this article might also spend more time writing and less time calling for deletion. Mitchplusone 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Being the headmaster of a school does not make you notable, lets not get sidetracked from that point. He fails WP:N, he is not the subject of any third-party source. The article lacks any serious WP:RS. Stop trying to create a walled garden for Newington College, and start writing an encyclopedia. Twenty Years 08:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have seen no precedent of inherent notability for high school principals or headmaster, even if they were the first one for a school. There is nothing wrong with people nominating articles about headmasters for deletion, and there is nothing " highly disruptive" about doing so. The refs neither prove notability nor satisfy WP:BIO. Ref 1 is not about the subject of this article and only says "John Waterhouse deputized for him at Sydney" Ref 2 and Ref 3 are about his son. Notability does not percolate back to ancestors. Ref 2 makes bare passing reference of John Waterhouse. Ref 3 has some brief info about John Waterhouse, which it says came from bio notes "contributed by the Waterhouse family" indicating a lack of reliable and independent information. As a bio article, it is unencyclopedic, lacking even his years of birth and death. Reliable and independent secondary sources are needed to support the several assertions made here in support of his notability. I strongly object to making Wikipedia a directory of everyone who served as high school principals, unless their contributions were such as to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. It seems the references are pertaining to his son, and he is only briefly mentioned, which I don't think makes him notable. Iamchrisryan 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not disputing that the article and references need improvement - I have said that but just because the references aren't online doesn't say they don't exist. There are many thinner wiki articles in existence. His notablility is not inherent - it relates to his ability to get up and running an important regional high school when many others were failing and in being an Australian first. Mitchplusone 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The references are mostly about Coates and Waterhouse's son. However, Waterhouse is certainly worth a mention in the articles on Maitland Boys High School and Sydney Boys High School respectively. I would reconsider if Mitchplusone discovers more information.Capitalistroadster 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Compare Waterhouse to Ralph Townsend and he looks just as notable. Maybe I should have done more work on this article before posting it but he is certainly notable in the history of NSW education. Does it matter if Waterhouse is the primary subject of the references - I don't think so. Waterdanks 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Update I have used the High Centenary History as a reference having been advised by the State Library of NSW of its extensive coverage of Waterhouse. They are emailing me the relevent pages but the "Ask a Librarian Service" takes around ten days so at the rate this debate is going JW may be in the wiki trash bin by then. Waterdanks 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete I see no assertion of notability, the references cited all have other people as their subject. WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." with "Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...", there is nothing like a secondary source with John Waterhouse as it's subject, he's not notable. Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is nothing short of schoolcruft. This persons bio was created primarily to raise the profile of Newington College on wikipedia (someone might make an essay on it: "NewingtonCruft"). On a serious note, the person fails WP:BIO, WP:N (no sources stated have Waterhouse as their primary subject). Waterhouse is little more than a sidenote in the history of Newington, and little more than your average person. Pure cruft. Twenty Years 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep (changed vote) per AdB entry. Twenty Years 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Merge to Newington College or perhaps a subarticle on its headmasters. The subject doesn't seem quite notable enough to have their own article in WP, but he is notable enough through the school to be included in there somewhere. Deletion of the article won't be helpful for either party. JRG 00:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Definite keep Headmasters of notable schools are notable, and his is apparently one of the the most important in his country. We've done that consistent with the major UK public schools and it applies here do. He doesn't have to have a earth--shaking effect on the course of history--just be important in the context of australian education. And that he is. I note that thee has previously been a rash of attempts to delete articles on everyone connected with this college, judging by this recordDGG (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - As headmaster of 2 of the most notable schools in Australia. Read the article's first sentence. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That is not a neutral point of view & he does not pass WP:BIO there are hundreds of headmasters all around australia. We dont need an article for every headmaster that has ever been. ExtraDry 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the schools are really notable, then we should and do, per precedents in all other countries.DGG (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the word "notable" from the opening sentence so as to remove any suggestion that it isn't neutral. Would someone like to create a Waterhouse Family article as John's father, his uncles, his son and his cousins are all given articles in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. There would be a bit of work involved but I'm sure that those campaigning for a keep on the Hawke family and Willesee family would support this new article (avoiding any claims of AfD Cruft) and John Waterhouse could be in it even if he is given the flick from this article. Archifile 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Running with this suggestion I have created two new pages for members of the Waterhouse family Jabez Waterhouse and Joseph Waterhouse (minister) and will do a few more as time permits. Individually or as a group the extended Waterhouse family are notable in the Methodist church, education and science. At this stage I have just linked them with 'See also' sub-headings. This exercise will take some time to complete and to find all references, although the ADB has been used for the first two. John's son, Walter Waterhouse already had a page. I trust the wiki community will allow time for this to happen and not call for deletions in haste. Waterdanks 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Waterhouse family is one hell of a dynasty. George Marsden Waterhouse was the 6th Premier of South Australia and the 7th Premier of New Zealand. Is somone bold enough to create the family page? Waterdanks 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge - The Australian Dictionary of Biography is not a trivial publication, and he appears to be notable. (I would also note that this AfD is the latest in a long string of bad faith tit-for-tat between editors on the Newington College article.) Orderinchaos 23:27, 7 October 2007 (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.