Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scott Fletcher

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Fletcher

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

Non-notable priest/headmaster. While he was a professor, no achievements are disclosed. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Not notable. -- Longhair\^talk 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. First, I note the remark "no achievements are disclosed" seems to overlook the obligation on those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. For example, do we lack reliable sources that he founded Kings College (which I think is one claim of notability)? My quick Trove search seems to show the man to be constantly in the historic newspapers, so I feel that "thorough attempts" were not made. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. I believe the nominator should withdraw this and other proposed articles for deletion based on the same invalid rationales and take the time to consider whether these proposed deletions are warranted on grounds of notability alone after thorough attempts have been made to find reliable sources and without unproven allegations about the motivations of the article's creator. Kerry (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did not found Kings College. 1.124.108.125 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was the foundation master though, being appointed in 1912 with the college opening in 1913 ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than sufficient in TROVE to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that a targeted search of "M Scott Fletcher" brings forward 2,683 newspaper reports via Tove I believe it is fair to say that this minister (not a priest) university college master (not a headmaster) and professor (surely of its self a distinction) has a level of notability and that this spurious AfD should be brought to a speedy close so that we can deal with the nominator who seems to have a new cover as User talk:1.124.108.125. Castlemate (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kerry et al. Clearly meets GNG. The shameful ad hominem attack on the article's creator, in this and the OP's other nominations, is irrelevant to the subject's notability, and suggests the lack of a more cogent rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 5 December 2017 (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.