Deletion of James M. Matarazzo

Comment: due to a combination of  and , as others have said
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: 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 #C1 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  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  but above threshold for me. So combining #C2 and AUTHOR, and the one in-depth reliably-published obituary (not enough for  by itself, but also contributing to notability) I come down as a keep on this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)