Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan C. A. Boeyens

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. SNOW, withdrwwn by nom. DGG (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan C. A. Boeyens

Non notable researcher User A1 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found four books written or co-written by him (not counting being the editor of a conference proceedings). According to worldcat, each is held by 100-200 libraries, which to me means that they received the default amount of attention for an academic monograph rather than having any special notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The long list of (at least moderately important) awards here puts him over the line. By preference they need to be sourced from elsewhere because that is a borderline source, but I'm satisfied that they were awarded. 9Nak (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He looks pretty notable to me, based on his extensive CV which includes many high ranking positions. Gigs (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If his textbooks are in fact in use at schools he should be kept in accordance with the Books Notability item "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Can someone confirm the textbooks he has written are in use?Johndowning (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If his Web of Science ratings are good then keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Keep. Based on the info. uncovered by David Eppstein and 9Nak, plus these citations (especially the first), he arguably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, this is a better search in this case. I am changing my recommendation to a “keep”.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this can be closed per WP:SNOW User A1 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (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.