Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Matarazzo


 * 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. No consensus to delete and a consensus that the subject meets NPROF, and to a weaker extent NAUTHOR and GNG. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

James M. Matarazzo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject never held a named chair, does not appear to qualify as notable per WP:ACADEMIC, references here are either WP:PRIMARY or are part of his obituary. Non-trivial discussion of the subject in independent reliable published sources seems to be lacking. His list of publications does not make him notable. A loose necktie (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  12:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  12:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Subject's area of expertise is admittedly niche within the academic world. There are no named chairs in his field. While he did receive the highest honors possible in his field from the recognised international organization representing his profession (Special Libraries Association) and held the most senior academic post in a university known for his field, I will endeavor to add reliable secondary sources to justify his inclusion. Note that his inclusion is no less justified than his PhD supervisor Thomas J. Galvin whose inclusion is not questioned. I would appreciate time to work on this article prior to a decision on deletion to conform with WP:ACADEMIC. IACOBVS (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:NACADEMIC is plausible. Subject meets, at least, WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1,2,3 within his field. IACOBVS (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The academic study of special libraries does indeed appear to be a low-citation discipline, so I don't think we should read too much into the unimpressive numbers in Matarazzo's citation record, but neither is that a justification for keeping the article on WP:PROF grounds. And our article Special Libraries Association says that its fellow title is "awarded to mid-career SLA members", which is not the kind of "highly selective honor" that would pass #C3. So the strongest claim to WP:PROF notability would appear to be through #C2 and the SLA Hall of Fame and John Cotton Dana Award. Additionally, the article already listed two reviews of two of his books and I added four more reviews of two more books. It's a little on the light side for WP:AUTHOR but above threshold for me. So combining #C2 and AUTHOR, and the one in-depth reliably-published obituary (not enough for WP:GNG by itself, but also contributing to notability) I come down as a keep on this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur with David Eppstein. Subject meets WP:PROF and has additional justification for keeping it when combined with elements of WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. IACOBVS (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to a combination of WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.