Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Beck (schoolmaster)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beck (schoolmaster)

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

Beck's notability appears simply to have been inherited from his proximity to Charles, Prince of Wales rather than any particular notability of his own. On that basis I submit that he is not, himself, notable, despite an obit in The Times, again derived from his proximity to UK royalty. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I believe Beck meets the crunch General notability guideline in that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Others can review them to see whether they agree. Beck was indeed close to the Prince of Wales, but that alone does not prevent him from being notable. Indeed, as only one of the reliable sources provided so far is more about the Prince than about Beck, the "notability inherited from proximity" argument strikes me as a little thin. (I was planning to nominate the page at DYK but will wait a few days for the outcome of this afd.) Moonraker (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cheam is a very famous UK Public School, and its headmasters are probably notable , quite apart from the connection of this one with royalty. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have it misplaced. It is not UK Public School, it is for the prior age group, up to 13 years old, and is a preparatory school, a class of school about which we do not even have that weird 'automatic notability afforded to it because it is a school'. Public Schools are rather different and tend to be famous. Preparatory Schools tend not to be. This one is simply reasonably old, and was chosen by the UK royals for Charles because his dad had been there and they were experimenting. Fiddle Faddle 08:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- apart from the claims of the Moonraker for GNG and DGG's citation of Cheam as an important UK school, consider the aim of WP:N for a moment -- it is not to have a standard of famousness or quality of people to be worthy of Wikipedia, it is to ensure that the articles we have can be supported by well-documented and reputable sources. The extensive documentation of the life of this person that Moonraker has uncovered leads me to believe that we can in fact maintain a high quality and well-documented article on the subject. I further believe that a non-paid obituary in a major newspaper is sufficient for GNG regardless of whether at the time the notability was inherited or not; Does Wellington not get an article because his only major accomplishment was defeating Napolean and thus has inherited notability? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cheam is clearly a Prep School, not a Public School, but the subjects involvement in the education of the Prince of Wales clearly makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obituary in The Times is sufficient to confirm notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC) PS as Mscuthbert (talk · contribs) rightly says, WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY and seems to be based on a bizarre naive idealism that subject should only be included if they are "worthy" enough to "deserve" their article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2013 (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.