Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lacy

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lacy[edit]

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

The article appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. The citations included are about exhibitions that Lacy has contributed to, these are not independent sources. A search on Google News and Google Scholar reveals no sources to support significant impact. Being a curator is not, of itself, considered notable for an article and BLP articles for curators tend to be supported by evidence of publication history, academic reputation or impact on the long term historical record. The article was created in 2006 and flagged for improvement since 2008, so it seems unlikely that this will be fixed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generally speaking, being a curator is just a job like any other organisational position and in this particular case, I fail to see what makes a case for notability of this job of curator of this gallery or project and the person that holds it. Certainly the hotchpotch of references, some of which are dead links - do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:RS.--Kudpung (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this doesn't fit WP:GNG. I think curators need to fulfill similar requirements as academics. As notability is not inherited, curating a notable exhibition would require a bit more in order to fulfill WP:N. Having said that, few of these exhibitions appear to be notable. freshacconci talktalk 19:05, 16 August 2010 (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.