Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royden Yerkes

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 per improvements made Star Mississippi 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royden Yerkes[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)

Was deprodded without improvement, simply saying that they pass NACADEMIC. However, I'm not seeing how that is. Has been unsourced for years without improvement. While they do get some mentions, can't find the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete I don't see how they pass WP:NACADEMIC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read his obituary, it states he was one of the most notable authors and scholars in the Episcopal Church, I don't believe that confers that his work was notable in the field of theology. I don't believe it's enough to show a pass of NACADEMIC criteria 1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't ACADEMIC part 5 as the head of the theology department make them notable?Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No. #C5 is about named chairs given as a sign of distinction for scholarly work. It is not about chairs of departments, an administrative (managerial) role. The only academic criterion that covers administrative work is #C6, and that requires heading an entire university. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are enough reviews (eight currently listed) of his book Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism to convince me that the book is notable. But with only one book, there's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. If someone makes an article on the book we could consider redirecting to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete per David Eppstein. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a theologian, meets NACADEMIC #1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources as evidenced by the reviews of Sacrifice and:

His obituary, which states "Father Yerkes had been one of the most notable authors and scholars is the Episcopal Church, having taught in three seminaries, contributed frequently to various theological journals, and served in many official capacities in the Diocese of Chicago, and the Diocese of Pennsylvania."
Coverage of a foundation appointment, which states "He is the author of numerous articles and books in theology, and his latest work has just been accepted for publication by Charles Scribners and Sons and will be released this year."

WP:GNG is met as well. His death was noted in Illinois, Philadelphia and as far away as Texas and California. During his life, his sermons frequently received newspaper coverage across the country: D.C., Alabama, Pennsylvania, Washington (that's a selection but not all of the available newspaper sources).

Jfire (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including newspaper coverage of himself and book reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- That is a significant body of academic work. The book on sacrifice had 8 reviews, including both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire's sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, agree with the sources found above and the explanations. It's not a slam dunk, but Episcopal theology is a rather narrow field of study to start with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2023 (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.