Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School business manager

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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School business manager

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

What makes this obscure occupation/job/position is notable? The article doesn't say and my BEFORE doesn't find anything that's in-depth, reliable and independent. PROD has been declined, so let's discuss this here. The article, written like a shill advertising for some schools offering a relevant degree, is likely WP:TNT-quality level anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure it's obscure. Every school in the UK has one. Schools in the States do have them [1][2] as do schools in New Zealand [3], Australia [4] and South Africa [5]. Agree article is not written great, and looking at the evidence out there, it is mostly local or specialist press, though there is this Guardian article [6]. I work in education so staying out of any voting.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "What makes this topic notable?" Really? Let's start with 10 books on the subject:

Now tell us again how "my BEFORE doesn't find anything"... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, If only you looked into the sources... setting aside totally not relevant titles like "Managing the Business of Schools" or "School Finance and Business Management", works like "School business manager: developing the role" are not reliable - it is just a course syllabus... once you try to weed bad sources from your WP:GOOGLEHITS we can start paying more attention to your posts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes no sense to discuss this with some editors, Google Hits are of course not bad things but it seems that the difference in between quantity and quality of the sources does generally not get through, main argument in the end for them will be Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valid criticism of the sources presented, but 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 & 10 seem to hold up and show WP:SIGCOV of the profession. SailingInABathTub (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SailingInABathTub, 10 is about management (activity), not manager (the role). As for the others, I am open to reviewing the contents, as the titles are often misleading. Which page ranges in which source discuss the concept in-depth? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't link it but searching 10 for "school business manager", actually does turn up a details of this role. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus talks about WP:GOOGLEHITS like they are a bad thing but, per WP:BEFORE, such work is expected of a nominator, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." As this is an academic subject, we also find plenty on Google Scholar:

So, we must wonder again that the nomination states "my BEFORE doesn't find anything". What did this BEFORE consist of, if it didn't use Google? Reviewing the nominator's contributions it appears that the nomination process took less than 3 minutes following unrelated work on a DYK and Jew with a coin. Piotrus's process seems to be perfunctory and preposterously pointy. Having been put to more trouble to demonstrate this, other editors should be spared this vexation and so my !vote is now Speedy Keep. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:BEFORE gave me some results bot those are ALL not independent, in-depth coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another source is the lecture by EM Wood at UCL, which charters the rise of the role, and has tons of reliable sources to back it up.In the actual The Times it discussed back in 2008 why the role meant more teachers were applying for head jobs [7], while there is stuff in the supplement Times Educational Supplement, [8], [9], [10].

We also have from the specialist press:[11], [12], [13], [14]. And intergrale to UK Ofsted inspections [15]. It is a recognised profession. Note I am not an SBM. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstewartharvey, The fact that a term is mentioned in an article dooesn't mean the article is about the topic (SIGCOV). What I see are some opinion pieces and best practices from one SBM to another. The position exists, but what makes it notable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The Guardian piece or the E W Willis lecture? They are Sigcov as they show the rise of the role from the original position of Bursary to SBM. The current article is rubbish, and looks like it has been copied from an interview with the LASBM done in the Ed Exec. TNT may be the best think for the article, but the role is notable enough.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't talk of TNT as this is a toxic military explosive used in devices such as this to attack London, where I live. It is therefore an offensive and inappropriate metaphor. The page WP:TNT, to which the nomination refers, is not policy, being merely a gratuitous essay with "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The relevant policies here are WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT which state that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG. The article does require improvement, but there is significant coverage of the profession in reliable sources, such as many of those proposed by Andrew Davidson and Davidstewartharvey. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per User:Andrew Davidson, there are clearly enough sources of adequate quality to support notability of the subject, as a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have shown, regardless of the poor standard of the present article. Ingratis (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -"School business management competency framework". GOV.UK. 1 May 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2021. If it is notable enough to have a 46 page government document on the duties and the career path, it is WP:N. The article itself was not written by a Wikipedian- so I have improved the markup. Glancing at the rendering it looked to be referenced- but in many ways it was a useful linkfarm- I tried to convert them to references but gave up. This is a new career path necessitated by the Academy program and the need for each school to replicate the functions of the LEA- In private and GM schools, these functions were provided by the bursar and his staff. The bursar article needs similar updates. ClemRutter (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (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.