Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rolph Seely

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rolph Seely

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

No passing of academic notability. His work is not impactful enough for prong 1, and nothing else even close. No passing of GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: If he was so non-notable, why did you create his article in the first place? p b p 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, delete p b p 19:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both my understanding of notability and Wikipedia consensus on the matter have evolved over time. I used to feel that editing works such as the one on Lehi's Jerusalem that Seely was an editor of was enough for notability. I have since come to realize that we need a bit more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mormon religious studies scholars are almost never cited outside of the LDS publication echo chamber, even when their work is serious and about the Old and New Testaments. I am aware of this predicament from an acquaintance in the same situation. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an emerging trend for works by Mormons even BYU religion profesaors to be published by mahor university presses. The quickest exampke of this I can think of is "The Mormon Image in The American Mind" by I believe J. D. Haws and published by Oxford University Press. This is more historical/political science. The religion side is a bit harder. Thus our article on Grant Hardy was deleted although his contributions to the actual study of the Book of Mormon are generally highly rated. However Seely still seems on the lower end for production of scholarly work and my general guess is not one of the main forces. I wish I could say otherwise put I don't think he rises to the level of notability. I am willing to stand by asserting that John Gee and several other scholars are notable but not Seely.

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.