Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Austin


 * 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. Consensus seems to be a weak keep, so feel free to nominate this again if it doesn't get improved within the next month or so. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

James H. Austin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be non-notable. Moreover, article is written in an advert-like manner. ⁓ Hello 71 15:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. At first view, the GScholar results are very impressive. At second view, it looks as if the GScholar results may be combining two or more JH Austins, the subject of this article and one or more others from several decades ago (the 1950s to 1970s). However, even if they are, three of the subject's books show citation rates of 524, 143 and 80 - high enough to suggest not only significant academic impact but, given their relatively non-technical nature, a possibility that he meets WP:AUTHOR. That accounts for my "weak keep". As it happens, a quick look at what is visible of the subject's own books seems to confirm the identity of the subject with the author of at least a significant proportion of the older highly-cited papers - if this can be confirmed from reliable sources not connected with the subject, notability is, I think, unquestionable. While the current article certainly is written rather like an advert, we seem to have grounds for a thorough rewrite rather than deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Week keep Agree with PWilkinson that the article needs a major rewrite, with more emphasis on his academic career, but he does appear to have a claim of notability. His books are published by the MIT Press and at least one has gone into multiple editions. Zen and the Brain was reviewed by JAMA although it is now a bad link. If the article is kept, I suggest that the article about the book Zen and the Brain be redirected here; we don't need articles on both. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.