Talk:Sam van Schaik

Notability

It's not clear to me from the content of the article that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Are any of these true?

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

We will need at least one of these to be shown using at least two sources which are not affiliated with the subject. Right now it looks like the only sources are either the subject's employer or publisher. That's not adequate for establishing notability. Skyerise (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd add @Skyerise that Sam van Schaik's opinions on a Tibetan Buddhist Terma are definitely not peer reviewed [1] in that they contradict scholars, and he indicates he apparently doesn't understand even basic aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. Not even good as a RS for his alleged field. NOTABLEnot. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The history book is quite widely used in classrooms. In general Van Schaik writes monographs that are more accessible, and thus have a wider reception, than other Tibetologists. His works are some of the only texts I regularly see in bookstores. Tibetologist (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The page has been here with many contributors since 2011. Especially in the case of Pasdecomplot, it is easy to have the impression that the deletion is being proposed because of disagreement with Van Schaik. I wonder who those who think van Schaik is not notable think is more notable than him in the disciplines of Tibetan Dunhuang documents and the history of Tibetan tantra. Tibetologist (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tibetologist: Your impression is wrong. It was nominated because none of the sources were independent of the still-living subject and thus did not meet WP:BLP. I haven't read the subject's works and have no opinion on his scholarship. So let's not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Skyerise (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. I have to admit that I find the pastime of looking for Wikpedia articles to delete a bit hard to wrap my mind around, since it seems to have no positive externalities for society and, because of its increasing commonness, is overall weakening Wikipedia as a resource, in my view. Tibetologist (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me, incidentally like footnotes 6-12, which mention reviews, are all independent of the subject and verifiable. Tibetologist (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tibetologist: Those were all added because of the deletion. The article sat tagged since September without any of the many editors doing anything about it. Deletion requests frequently get the article properly cited so that the article is kept. Skyerise (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

None of the 8 criteria for not deleting the page have been met. The page still reads as a promotional sheet and not a serious bio on a notable person - because of the lack of credentials as required by the 8 criteria ?

I must add that I came to this page after reading SvS's surprising and embarrassing mistranslation of Dzogchen, found on researchgate:(

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sam-Scha)ik

"Dzogchen (rDzogs chen)",

Chapter, from the book Buddhism, April 2012, by Sam van Schaik who writes :

"Dzogchen is a Tibetan word meaning “great” (rdzogs) “perfection” or “completion” (chen)."

SvS, if he were notable, would certainly know that 'Chen' is the Tibetan syllable that means 'great'. This abstract continues with additional serious errors in the subject. Thus, SvS may have a very good manager and publicist, but he appears to remain less than scholarly and therefore has not been able to meet the criteria.

Apr 2012

Sam van Schaik

Dzogchen is a Tibetan word meaning “great” (rdzogs) “perfection” or “completion” (chen)..." : To correct SvS's error, 'Chen' is the Tibetan word that means 'great'. This is 36.252.30.250 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)