Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exam Invigilator

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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 02:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exam Invigilator[edit]

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

Not convinced of notability. Most sources are job descriptions or how-to's. The Banner talk 12:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to improve this article? I am new to Wikipedia and is still not clear about placing references or in - text citations. Could anyone help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine Roy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improve The term is in popular usage in India. Try improving the article._SOLA_TIDO 13:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the Netherlands and Ireland it is not even a job, but an extra task for faculty. The Banner talk 10:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some job descriptions, e.g. Chief executive officer, are worthy of articles. This isn't one of them. Monitoring exams for cheating does not a career make. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 11#Sub Assistant Community Medical Officer.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure it is not a career but it is a distinctive and notable function. The article needs a whole load of work but there are more than sufficient sources available, some of which are in the article, to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the comments above seem to make "give a dog a bad name and beat him for it" - Exam Invigilator is clearly not a profession or a career. Mostly, it's a role that university or high school teachers or graduate students take on for a few hours a year. That said, it's not a trivial role nor is it intrinsically part of a teacher's regular job, like marking exam papers. Also, the article meets the basic principles of WP:GNG - the subject has plenty of verifiable secondary sources, it's not temporary or transient, and none of the subject-specific guidelines seem to provide a reason to AFD it. Furthermore, merging it into Test (assessment) doesn't seems sensible as the latter article seems to violate WP:SIZE already. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but it has enough 3rd party sources to be notable. Frmorrison (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (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.