Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Hyers

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hyers[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)

not significant enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia MisterNoOne (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Conrad Hyers[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as already has coverage in multiple reliable sources in the article such as St Peters Herald, Kirkus Reviews, multiple academic journals. Also worldcat shows he has 3300 library holdings which is a strong sign of notability Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a dozen or so published book reviews on multiple books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep, sails past WP:AUTHOR because multiple book reviews of multiple books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. Thanks to David Eppstein for putting in the work. Bakazaka (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Spyder212 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above and WP:SNOW Vizjim (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. --Tataral (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus seems clear, but I do want to ask -- is an obituary from a small-town newspaper and a handful of book reviews from academic journals enough to establish the subject is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"? MrNoOne
See WP:AUTHOR#3, which is the most relevant guideline here. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2019 (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.