Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam van Schaik

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam van Schaik

[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)

1) Is a BLP with only affiliated sources (schools attended, employers), no independent sources (yes, I've looked) and 2) There are no sources because he doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. He's just not notable as an academic. Skyerise (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ He works in a library which is a bit different than a typical professor, but this does still count as a PROF position. He does not pass C1, as he has an h-index of 3, 19 publications, and 23 citations respectively. Now, while I am unfamilar with this field and I know fields like religious studies and histories can have low averages, this seems really low even for that, so I am inclined to think this fails C1. He fails C2 as he does not seem to have won any major awards. C3 as he does not seem to have won any awards. Fails C4 as I see no evidence of impact, he fails C5 as his appointments have been neither named nor disginguished, and none of his have been appointed administrative so it fails C6 too. It fails C7 because his impact has been low and not noteworthy. Finally fails C8 as he has not been an editor. All of that aside, he has three published books on his academic website (1) (2) (3), which have been cited 197, 24, and 6 times. I found two other books (4) (5) that got 4 and 2 citations. Most of these were published under Yale University Press and are of an academic nature. It looks like there are a few others as well from earlier years that have parallel content, publishers, and citation amounts. ~~These don't pass WP:AUTHOR as there is no major press coverage nor do I see signs of impact.~~ The first one does have a fair amount of citations that makes me wonder if that would count towards WP:PROF C1 if this is abnormal for his field of study (if someone is versed in this field please comment!), ~~but I am inclined to think no as it isn't discussed and~~ I believe that is a hallmark of significance in the humanaties academic world (please correct me if I am wrong). Essentially, I gave this a good look and came up dry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tautomers (talk

Keep I am revising my vote to keep as Russ Woodroofe below found review of the large book that I missed, and I agree that this brings him over a threshold to meet WP:AUTHOR, and in my view WP:PROF as well since it is an academic book. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC) • contribs)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While citations are a bit light for WP:NPROF C1 (as one might expect for a "book" field), I'm seeing enough reviews (of at least two books + an edited volume) for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], also [8] of an edited volume. (Search JSTOR with an Advanced Search and the reviews-only filter is btw a useful trick!) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. thanks Russ! I was looking for stuff like this but couldn't find it. I am not familar with Jstor and didn't use it while looking which explains why I didn't come across it. I have revised my vote to keep. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the author of a noteworthy history of Tibet (Tibet: A History, 2011) for which there is no dearth of reviews. --Elnon (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added to the article 16 published reviews of 6 books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of many highly cited books on Tibet, e.g Tibet: A history has 198 citations on Google Scholar. Uhooep (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed. Wrote a highly-respected and heavily-reviewed history of Tibet. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 July 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.