Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Harper Clarkson

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. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harper Clarkson[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^speak 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that a bishop of the Episcopal church is notable. This is a perfectly acceptable stub about a 19th century bishop, that includes a link to a treasure trove of documents about this man's life, including reliable sources. Improve this article through normal editing - don't delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), gives a pretty clear consensus that being a Bishop by itself (even in a non Anglican/Episcopal area) is notability in and of itself. Ravendrop (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any precedent that says any bishop is automatically notable. The article is unreferenced except for one external link which brings you to a page where there are links to four primary sources (sermon transcripts and obituaries). I haven't seen evidence that WP:GNG has been passed. SnottyWong ^confabulate 15:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any precedent that says that all obituaries are by definition primary sources. Clearly brief death notices, usually written by family members, are primary sources. In this case, though, we have much more than a routine obituary, that is really a detailed biographical sketch written by noted 19th century journalist George L. Miller, founding editor of the Omaha Herald, which is still published as the Omaha World-Herald. I think that qualifies as a reliable secondary source. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article and added three references. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason advanced to disregard a rather clear consensus regarding notability of ecclesiastics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (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.