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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Keen[edit]

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

Page has been tagged as questionable notability since May 2008 with no additional sources. Subject has no apparent results in Google News, and Google Scholar shows only subject's own papers and occasional citation. Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3: author of at least one book that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews. See the 5 reviews quoted at the front of the paperback edition of The Benefits of Famine, or search GScholar for his name in the article title. I also get results that appear to conflict with nominator's finding that "Google Scholar shows only subject's own papers and occasional citation"; top citation counts of 603, 313, 267, which seems very high for his area, enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. Qwfp (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and I would be glad to withdraw the nomination. Khazar2 (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (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.