Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor)

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 Keep Precedent setting as to whether Vice Chancellor position is sufficient for notability, most likely as the position at most Universities would have requirements exceeding that of WP:PROF anyway. Gnangarra 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor)

Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject does not pass WP:BIO & WP:PROF There are no published secondary sources, He has not demonstrable wide name recognition or received significant recognized awards or honors. Only recieved the Centenary Medal which was only created by the Australian Government in 2001 to commemorate the Centenary of Federation of Australia, He was one of 15,841 people. So to sum it up Not Notable ExtraDry 06:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Google the name 'Nicholas Saunders Newcastle' and no less than 100 articles will be found relating to this Australian educator. He has received wide press coverage (from no les than the SMH and ABC) since his appointment to the University of Newcastle due to his efforts to solve the financial crisis currently being suffered by this major tertiary educational institution. Prior to this position Nicholas Saunders had been dean of two Australian medical schools and had a distinguished career as a physician. Wikipedia has a list of Australian universty leaders (chancellors and vice-chancellors) as it presumably believes these are notable members of the academic community - if anything the article should be expanded.Castlemate 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Accomplished, but non-notable, medical academic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Change to Keep per DGG below. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not insignificant achievements as a medical academic, but certainly role in tertiary education, and in particular as a VC at a top university (there are only a couple of dozen unis in Australia, to put it in context), is enough to ensure notability. Recurring dreams 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Recurring dreams. A Vice-chancellor at one of Australia's largest universities will be easily sourced. A quick google search reveals a wealth of sources. A Google Scholar search reveals some details on authored papers. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The subject on the face of it seems notable, allthough the lack of WP:RS do not help the issue of notability. If appropriate references could be found then I could be swung to a full keep. Thewinchester (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Vice Chancellor is an important position which almost always follows a distinguished academic career. There are bound to be sources, in, for example, the Higher Education Supplement of the Australian. Some people have by far much tougher ideas on inclusion of academics than, say sports people or even politicians. --Bduke 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia's notability criteria is a joke when it comes to academics. --Fredrick day 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think he meets the exceptions to proving notability in WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The article does not establish those exceptions. Therefore, reliable secondary sources are required before he should be considered notable. Assize 12:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Still a delete. The references aren't independent of the subject, and the ABC reference is just an interview with him. Assize 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable for being dean of two medical schools and then a vice-chancellor of a major university. Notable for receiving the Centenary Medal which, despite what ExtraDry says, when it was was awarded to those in the academic field was awarded on the basis of their national or international impact in the field. Sources would improve the article, but the subject is still notable. The story of the budgetary problems and his attempt to solve them merely adds more notability to an article which is already over the threshold. David Newton 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:Notability and WP:PROF.--Edtropolis 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment just to clarify what I hope everyone knows, Vice Chancellor equals a U.S. University President. The actual Chancellor has a ceremonial role only. DGG 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In fact, I did not know that. In the U.S. a vice chancellor is a relatively minor, often bureaucratic position, generally two levels below a president. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I agree with Thewinchester - this person does seem notable (particularly as VC of the University of Newcastle) but the lack of reliable sources does weaken the case. --ElKevbo 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.Chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council is sufficient. Let alone everything else.Garrie 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am amazed that anyone might suggest that the Vice-Chancellor of any "real" university (open to a fairly broad interpretation) might not meet WP:PROFGarrie 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Me too, amazed. Note also that most VCs in Australia are now called "Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer" and they are extremely well paid compared with even top Professors. --Bduke 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Do note that usage of the term varies in the English-speaking world. example --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are article's about other university Vice-Chancellors that haven't had their notability questioned, such as the University of Sydney's Gavin Brown. In my opinion, this individual has made some important contributions to medicine in Australia. Loopla 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Compare with Glyn Davis currently the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne and that articles total lack of references - why is it not up for deletion. Castlemate 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment It is now. ExtraDry 10:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment And subsequently saved Loopla 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well done - Glyn Davis has been sorted out. Could somone be so kind and help improve poor old Nicky Saunders? Now, what about Steven Schwartz and Gavin Brown. Both are obviously notable but both have reference problems. Will ExtraDry call for their deletion?
      • Don't put ideas in his head! -- Necrothesp 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Vice-Chancellor in Australia is the equivalent of a US University President. The National Health and Medical Research Council is Australia's leading medical research body so being chair of that establishes notability as well. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's President of a major university and has had a distinguished career. I don't think that makes him notable but we go by WP:PROF here, not my standards. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I would ahve thought that a university Vice-Chancellor was notable in his own right. I assume that in Australia (like Britain), the Chancellor is an honorific sinecure, so that the Vice-Chancellor is in practice the head of the institiution. Peterkingiron 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would agree that a VC of a major university is automatically notable. -- Necrothesp 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, VC of a major Australian university is notable, as simple common sense should indicate. Lankiveil 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Ready for a speedy close, I think. The only two deletes are a/from someone who has so far nominated every Australian vice-chancellor in succession, and another who, as here, rarely gives reasons. DGG 07:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. ExtraDry summed up the policies excellently. Under WP:PROF he doesn't meet 1) isn't an expert in any field 2) isn't regarded as important by others in his field 3) no significant works published 4) no significant body of work 5) hasn't originated a new concept, and 6) the only award received is the centenary medal. Under WP:BIO, has no independent non-trivial secondary sources. As I said above, the only independent source is an interview given by him to the ABC. Apart from those problems, I agree that this should be closed as a keep, as I reckon it would be a nice article to have in Wikipedia even though it doesn't comply with the guidelines. Assize 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Then change the guidelines because they obviously don't work or at best they allow for trivial and vexatious calls for deletion by disgruntled editors. Could somebody please help with publications as there is confusion with this Nicholas Saunders and another Nicholas Saunders who seems to be big in Ice and Ectasy. Or are they the same person - after all one of our least favourite editors has at least two personalities! Surely it is time for WP:SNOW!
  • Comment Time for WP:SNOW?--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 16:31, 17 June 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.