Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Stephenson (curator)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stephenson (curator)

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

Medium level public servant. Is an archivist at some govt agencies, was a state-level branch manager of a few govt bodies. No achievements disclosed ADS54 talk 11:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in no way meets our notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet WP:GNG. Kb.au (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable at governance and management level of museums and galleries in three states for twenty years. Castlemate (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this one falls just on the side of notability between his quite public National Trust roles and his other quite senior positions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of their National Trust role and other senior roles, notability still requires reliable independent sources to covered it. I'm stuggling to find any of significance, and the main ones cited are primary and not independent. Kb.au (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the posts are significant-ish, but I've not been able to find the coverage to back up WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not voting due to a COI (as a member of the National Trust of SA, I've met Ian Stephenson), but I have to dispute the AFD nominator's description of Stephenson as "a state-level branch manager of a few govt bodies". The National Trust bodies (NSW and SA) are in fact separate, autonomous NGOs (although they are both member groups of the National Trust of Australia). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your integrity and background knowledge of the subject. Castlemate (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider ~~Amar Pandit~~ the CEO of the National Trust in South Australia. as sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you've responded to the wrong AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amar_Pandit. Kb.au (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

actually it was a copy-paste error--i thought I was pasting the name of his organization, but I had the previous name in my clipboard. thanks for spotting it. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have to agree with TDW that this one falls just on the side of notability, per their extensive career. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 20:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many prominent national posts demonstrate sufficient notability. SunChaser (talk) 02:27, 21 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.