Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Morgan

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 speedy keep. Nomination wtihdrawn, no arguments for deletion have been made. Fences&Windows 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Morgan

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

In 2009, I prod'd it; prod was removed by an editor. Two more prods came today, so I figured an AFD is due. No indication of meeting WP:PROFESSOR or WP:AUTHOR, no references despite being tagged since January 2009. Managing Urban America, the best claim for notability, is also up for deletion. THF (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Managing Urban America has been through at least six editions, suggesting that its author passes criterion 4 WP:PROF as the author of a widely-used textbook. See http://www.cqpress.com/product/Managing-Urban.html#testimonials for comments from other academics. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Worldcat reports 858 library holdings for all editions of Managing Urban America. See http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn:1568029306 – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added reference to his named chair at Oklahoma, which qualifies for WP:PROFESSOR. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward Vielmetti and per WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a GS h index around 20+ and passes WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw nomination per WP:SNOW and arguments of above users. But the article still needs much improvement, as there isn't a single secondary source. THF (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (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.