Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Hollows

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 no consensus, however this probably was a keep if the debate adjudication only focused on the part after the article was updated. - Daniel.Bryant 10:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Hollows

Possibly notable, but article, especially at end, reads like spam EliminatorJR 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Though it's true that she's been mentioned in a BBC article, the WP:BIO criteria states that the person must be a "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"--TBCΦtalk? 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~.(edit: Keep now, due to updates, clear notability) ~~Considering the Google News Archive Search results [1], I am wary of deleting, however this is a borderline case, and further research is needed.~~ —siro χ o 03:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "primary subject" rule at BIO is under dispute and is more stringent than the general notability criterion for WP. BIO is a mess right now and changes from day to day. She is a significant subject within the BBC article, but I would like to see more resource material to fully establish notability. I think this article needs to go to cleanup. --Kevin Murray 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. I've removed the advertising spiel at the end of the article. The user who created the articles is currently adding lots of people who have gained DBEs. Some of these are obviously notable but others must be borderline - this bio is mostly copied from BBC and other articles. Question is, are people notable purely because they've got a DBE? EliminatorJR 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete pending a re-write and addition of references. Montco 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Based on new references, I will change the delete opinion to weak keep. The spam for her consultancy probably needs to go. Montco 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless additionial references are provided. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unless additional references can be provided sunstar net^talk
Mild Keep Seems somewhat notable, but, per above, more sources would definitely help.Faysals 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Page is copied heavily (word for word in many cases) from Here. I have additionally tagged the article as copyright violation. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't fall under CSD criterion - it's not unquestionably a copyvio. Tag removed accordingly. 〈RED VEЯS〉 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "She started her career in London. After rapid promotion, she became head teacher at Calverton Primary School in the east London. Calverton appeared in the press, described as one of the worse schools in the country." and "Within three years, Calverton became the most improved primary school in the country, with results far exceeding those achieved in far more affluent areas." and "Sharon was invited to Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister, his education ministers, and advisors how these improvements had been brought about. After her presentation, the Secretary of State, David Blunkett asked her to join the prestigious Standards Task Force." and "She established a reputation as someone who could bring about high standards of educational achievement through the reform of traditional practices. She was soon invited to become an advisory head teacher." are lifted word for word from the website is not unquestionable. I will be removing these sections because they are unquestionable violations. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small question - why has most of Hollows' page been gutted? While some was copied from the BBC, the BBC was cited and credited as a link. What is the problem? What about Anne Rogers Clark -- this was copied directly from the NY Times obituary!!Veronica Mars fanatic 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which brings us back to the original point - are people notable purely because they've gained a DBE? While the subject's achievements in her workplace are obviously very commendable, the third-party references were only generated from her award. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of educational staff who have improved school results without gaining an award from it, do they all need a wiki page? EliminatorJR 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep tending to delete, living person and most of the article's claims are unsubstantiated by references or sources therefore we could run into trouble Alf photoman 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems to have had some cut'n'paste problems but subject is notable. I have added another reference prior to the Honours, showing it wasn't just that recognition. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References seem OK, and she's notable enough to have been awarded a DBE. However it is important that we are impartial, and seen to be impartial, and are not biased towards any particular commercial interest. Accordingly, we should eliminate the link to her own comments, and watch the article carefully for signs of commercialisation: she is no longer a teacher, but has set up her own "consultancy", presumably to capitalise on her fame. WMMartin 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I may be biased as I am the one who created the page but she is an educator who turned around one of the worst schools in the entire UK and was created as DBE for that; and is now an industry consultant, I believe she more than merits a page on Wikipedia. Btw, my vote was deleted by User:WMMartin --why??? Am I not allowed to vote as the author of the page?Veronica Mars fanatic 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not a "vote" EliminatorJR 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, Veronica Mars fanatic, I think we were both contributing to the AfD debate at about the same time ( you can check the edit times in the history of this debate ) and I guess I must have clicked something incorrectly when I made my posting. I certainly wasn't aiming to delete your comments, so sorry for that. As it happens, you'll see that we both feel that the article should be retained, so it should be clear that this wasn't meant maliciously, but was a pure accident. WMMartin 11:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw -- to those who feel the page needs fixing; please review current edition which has been updated to reflect other editors' concerns. Thanx. Veronica Mars fanatic 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the added info mainly duplicates the existing page, unfortunately. Despite the fact I nominated this for AfD, I'd actually quite like to keep it, but at the moment I really have to conclude that the only thing that is making the subject notable is her DBE. Even speaking as a teacher myself, if we had pages for every educationalist who had been successful in their job ... you get the picture. EliminatorJR 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too have had doubts about school educators, but in this case she's N. I am not certain whether the final paragraph about her consultancy is spam.DGG 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung and WMMartin, this subject does appear to be notable based on WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and WMMartin. I have removed the consultancy section as it didnt add to the bio per DGG; feel free to re-add a useful prose of her activities with the company. John Vandenberg 06:50, 24 February 2007 (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.