Deletion of Jonathan Stephen

Comment: on the ''purported'' 'rosh yeshiva' precedent, I would point out that (i) neither of the AfDs cited by Agricola44 resulted in a 'keep' outcome, (ii) no substantiation has been offered that there is any precedent that "even small religious colleges are 'major academic institutions'" (iii) Such a precedent would be dangerous as (a) there are a large number of such "small religious colleges", often lacking much in the way of third-party coverage & (b) 's caveat that "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." (which should provide a legitimate hurdle for such articles) appears to be largely ignored
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I see no evidence that Stephen passes . There doesn't seem to be any real third-party coverage. The articles actually used as sources give precious little biographic information, and very little that suggests notability. (After all, coverage in third party sources is a minimum condition for a bio; it is not in itself a demonstration of notability; I can think of two news stories that deal with me in at least as much detail as these do, in real newspapers, but despite that I'm not notable.) As to the "rosh yeshiva precedent" - I'm in no position to judge the breadth of support for such an idea, and until someone updates  appropriately it's nothing more than an anecdote in a couple no consensus AFDs. Anyway, WEST itself seems barely notable (it also lacks third party sourcing), so using an argument of inherited notability based on being head the seminary strikes me as rather a stretch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: The current state of the article —which appears to have been vastly improved since the initial nomination—&nbsp; meets the  standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: lack of third party sourcing or a clear articulation of how the topic meets  (head of a small and obscure seminary does not meet any of the criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: According to the Wales Evangelical School of Theology|article on the seminary the subject heads, it has an enrollment of 100, a total that it would be rather far-fetched to suggest qualifies as a "major academic institution" under any circumstances.  That Casaubon feels seminaries ought to be automatically defined as "major" institutions is a matter he should take to the  talk page, and win consensus for that POV before using it as a defense at AfD.As far as whether the subject is, as Sidefall alleges, a notable figure in British Christianity, a search on Google News UK for "Jonathan Stephen" + "Affinity," the evangelical organization the article states he heads, turns up zero hits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: director of multiple notable organisations, reasonable amount of coverage, borderline meets  per his position at the seminary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)