Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Higgins

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Higgins

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

Fails all criteria of WP:NACADEMIC: Google Scholar does not suggest frequent citation, and regular Google results are sparse as well. —swpb^T 12:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- Google books prevew returns what appears to be sufficient mentions, including a reference to his works as a "breakthrough" and a "comprehensive study of Canadian local politics". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems to have sufficient citations on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=higgins+djh&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 and on Google search. He is variously named as "Douglas Higgins", "DJH Higgins", and combinations thereof. Theo (Talk) 12:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm only seeing an h-index of 4 on Google scholar for author:djh-higgins — this may not mean much for this area, where book publishing rather than journal articles may be more the norm, but it's definitely not enough to form the basis of a keep opinion here. Worldcat shows ok library holdings for his two books (296 for "Urban Canada : its government and politics" and 118 for "Local and urban politics in Canada") but I'd be more convinced by in-depth reviews of these books than by numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability guidelines and is noted academically. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the scholar search and the results provided by K.e.coffman are enough to merit inclusion in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hope for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (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.