Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Stevenson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Stevenson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As of 2006, this page was begun and remaines unaddressed. It is woefully outdated, even neglected.

Whilst I am aware that some of the content discussion on the last nomination for deletion in 2008 made reference to the general publicising of 'Heads of Departments in Universities' and resulted in a 'keep', this page should be considered as not part of this agenda.

Since beginning her work at DCU, Chris Stevenson embarked on a great deal of both professional and personal projects, worked in many different areas and with great success. She had a battle with Cancer for a year and a half and sadly lost this fight in November of 2014.

Whilst the merits of such pages should be considered and not dismissed. It should also be noted that attempting to updaet this page would be a massive (and possibly painful) undertaking and those wishing to argue a 'keep' on this occasion bear this in mind. Find another, more useful source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clothsnake (talk • contribs) 11:10, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sad that she has died, but that provides the possibility that there is an obituary that would be a good source of information for her. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the person, perhaps you can look for this and add to the article? As it is now, the sourcing is not strong. LaMona (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no further comment on the nomination itself other than to note that the nominator has no other edits under that account. -- Finngall   talk  17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and update The previous discussion resulted in a clear "keep", and the nomination does not clearly state why this should be overturned: our approach is "once notable, always notable". The fact that the article is outdated is not a reason to delete, but to carry out the updating. Please note that this may be done by any editor, and those who may prefer for personal reasons not to be involved are not required to participate Noyster (talk),  09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- notable in 2008 would not make her less now. Her death, actually makes the arguments for deleting less strong: one of the main points of the notability requirements is the difficulty of policing BLPs. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.