Deletion of James H. Austin

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)