Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hershel Shanks

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The result was keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) jps (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hershel Shanks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:PROF and perhaps was being promoted by ideologues. WP:FRIND says we should look for independent sources and there appears to be only one mention in The New York Times. I do not think being the most influential amateur Biblical archaeologist is necessarily notable for Wikipedia unless there is more attention paid by legitimate sources (which this article sorely lacks). Being sued in Israeli Supreme Court is not an indication of notability. Nor is appearing in pulp TV shows. jps (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is reliable source coverage of Herschel Shanks in the context of his obituary: New York Times, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post. While I used to think articles like this should be deleted, a lesson in community consensus from many years ago strongly disagreed with my point of view, so I am saying "keep". When my username was Amatulic I started the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner). Apparently, an obituary in NYT is an automatic qualification for notability. I disagreed with the notion that a non-notable person becomes notable just because he died and he got an obituary, but community consensus was unanimous against me. Meeting WP:BASIC criteria is the overriding factor. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The obit coverage found by Anachronist goes a long way, and other sources like this one and this one push Shanks well over the notability threshold. The article obviously needs work, but it's not hard to find sufficient sourcing to write a neutral article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Shanks was an "everyone in this field knows about him" figure, probably the best-known popularizer of middle eastern archaeology after National Geographic. The obits speak clearly to his notability, especially as spread out as they were geographically. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A NYTimes obit is certainly a sign of notability. If you don't like that, however, there appear to be plenty of book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR notability: 2 at Kirkus [1], 4 at PW [2], at least 2 that I see in the NYTimes [3] [4]. That's just on a pretty casual and limited search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has SIGCOV, in particular obit coverage (New York Times, Washington Post, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Christianity Today is quite diverse). There's also quite a bit of coverage pre-dating his death in a google-news search over the past decade. Also quite possibly passes NAUTHOR with multiple books that are probably reviewed (they certainly have several citations each).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching Google Scholar for intitle:"Hershel Shanks" turns up several more book reviews, an in-depth biographical article from well before his death [5], and what appears to be a journal special issue in his memory with a couple of reminiscences [6] [7]. So he appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, without even having to evaluate whether his journal editorship work also gives him a pass of WP:PROF. Noted, by multiple independent reliable sources, implies notable. At this point it is looking like snow. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant indivdual in publishing recognised around the globe in branches of academia, and everyone has a angle but his was significant. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His work in the field of biblical archaeology clearly surpasses the threshold of notability for the reasons several others have pointed to above. To this may be added his significant legal career, which in addition to his work as a practitioner included several publications; the law practice and legal writing might not be notable in their own right, but if there were any possible doubt that Shanks was notable (which I don't think there is), they would help nudge him over the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2021 (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.