Talk:Thomas Higham (archaeologist)

Notability
Seven of the ten sources are written by Thomas Higham himself. We need independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Higham passes WP:PROF by a mile, with a h-index of 205 and 50+ papers with more than 100 citations.
 * I'm concerned by some of your recent removals. Not everything needs to be cited to an independent and/or secondary source. What on earth is wrong with citing his PhD thesis as evidence he did a PhD, for example ? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I bow to your superior knowledge as an admin, it was my understanding that we needed independent sourcing, I have NEVER come across an article with so many primary sources and so few reliable secondary ones. I don't doubt that he is notable but the sourcing is appalling and there is a conflict of interest. I would not have accepted the article in this state. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Independent sourcing needs to exist, it doesn't have to be cited in the article. Also note that whilst the references in this article aren't independent of the subject, they are peer-reviewed academic papers and so definitely reliable. All in all I would say this is a typical Start-class academic biography.–&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)