Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R Kennard

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John_R_Kennard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-Promotional, no encyclopedic relevance discernible (school principal)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EDUCATOR and WP:GNG. Unless I am mistaken, I can't see what he's done is anything more than mundane. There are literally thousands of headmasters and principals, almost none of whom are notable. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a traditionalist perspective, and looking at the historical record, headmasters of British public schools from the last century tend to end up passing WP:GNG as they often had a Who's Who entry and/or obituary in The Times. As I understand this school it is in the British tradition and I assume a member of the HMC, i.e. this is a quite prestigious public school, and so still not entirely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL contrary to Bearian (talk · contribs)'s assertion. However, I think we still need to go with WP:GNG. This might pass WP:GNG if sufficient sourcing can be found, but at present I do not think references are sufficient for a WP:BLP, so delete. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources provides weak basis for BLP notability claim. Moreover, being one of the representatives of the Grant Schools Council to the Court of the University of Hong Kong confers a certain degree of notability, albeit it could be argued that constitutes inhereted notability by virtue of the position, not the man. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability is not established in the article and the sources given are primary not secondary. A search for sources only yielded more primary ones or sources that don't pass WP:RS. I did find an Oriental Daily article but I can't translate it sufficiently and besides it is only one article. More would be required. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2014 (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.