Deletion of Sam van Schaik

Comment: While citations are a bit light for  C1 (as one might expect for a "book" field), I'm seeing enough reviews (of at least two books + an edited volume) for .  Reviews include https://www.jstor.org/stable/23214624 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357455 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23258923 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43733250 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43901867 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24692833 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357456, also https://www.jstor.org/stable/41302240 of an edited volume.  (Search JSTOR with an Advanced Search and the reviews-only filter is btw a useful trick
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Indeed. Wrote a highly-respected and heavily-reviewed history of Tibet. Clearly meets  #1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: I found and added to the article 16 published reviews of 6 books, easily enough for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: 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. {{strike|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 https://www.bl.uk/people/experts/sam-van-schaik# academic website https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=La1CWinaDR4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Sam+van+Schaik&ots=d2wztWGvaB&sig=NmGuBiJCggPwbIBaasPrZbcemv8#v=onepage&q=Sam%20van%20Schaik&f=false (1) https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CJ8DCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT11&dq=Sam+van+Schaik+Tibetan+Zen&ots=2yiA6cSQFS&sig=ViZdQE6lp8ShgOw6jBdBVgu1JU4#v=onepage&q=Sam%20van%20Schaik%20Tibetan%20Zen&f=false (2) https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=F1KODQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Sam+van+Schaik+The+Spirit+of+Tibetan+Buddhism&ots=6T1NTFmHuj&sig=bc2Uiw71ymprZrjIG63yIh2olFc#v=onepage&q=Sam%20van%20Schaik%20The%20Spirit%20of%20Tibetan%20Buddhism&f=false (3), which have been cited 197, 24, and 6 times. I found two other books https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Spirit_of_Zen/9d98DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Sam+van+Schaik+The+Spirit+of+Tibetan+Buddhism&printsec=frontcover (4) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Buddhist_Magic/KKfiDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Sam+van+Schaik+The+Spirit+of+Tibetan+Buddhism&printsec=frontcover (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. {{strike|These don't pass  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  C1 if this is abnormal for his field of study (if someone is versed in this field please comment!), {{strike|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.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF)