Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Jonker

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. Tone 12:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jonker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2013, I don't believe he meets WP:Academics Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: was PRODded in Feb 2013 as "no evidence of notability to meet WP:PROF" but dePRODded without comment by an IP. The only references are to catalogue entries: still no evidence of notability. PamD 12:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: I'm persuaded by DGG' s argument below. PamD 16:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full professor at major South African research university, apparently ranked 3rd best in South Africa by multiple surveys. Generally, tho not a formal guideline, full professors in major research universities are likely to be notable. The only exceptions in the last 5 years have been people whose field of study is not looked on here as rigorous, which can be reasonable, or where there is a prejudice against the field or the person, which is not reasonable. His field is theology, generally considered a rigorous academic discipline. . Is there a prejudice against it? In addition to his doctoral thesis, he published 5 books as author, 2 as editor or coeditor. As the field is fairly narrow--Old Testament interpretation-- and two of the books are in Afrikaans, and 3 of the others published either in Germany or south Africa, there won't be many holdings in WorldCat, which lists almost exclusively US & Canadian libraries ,and only the largest european libraries. For the two by a US publisher, the one he edited has 508 holdings, which is extremely high for theology (Historiography and identity (re)formulation in Second Temple historiographical literature). The other has 81, which is also quite respectable for a book published just one year ago in this rather slow-moving subject. One of the European publications has 131, another 102. A check for reviews in this field will take resources I do not have available online. I consider the holdings sufficient to show that he is a specialist in his field according to WP:PROF. Unless we wish to make the value judgement we regard theology as worthless, he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perusing DGG's statement, I feel that at the very least this person passes WP:AUTHOR. Offline sources appear to be the way to reference the article to firmly establish the notability of this person, if online sources cannot be found. ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:30, 10 August 2014 (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.