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. Has been shown to meet WP:PROF from here and here. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Heymons[edit]

Richard Heymons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Nominate for deletion See ms to fail WP:PROF. Could find nothing to support notability, and article has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of cites on GS with h-index of 12, which passes WP:Prof#C1 for work done a long time ago in a moderately cited field. Did the nominator look for German sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• keep per Xxanthippe, who evidently can count faster than i. it's almost certain that GS is going to understate the influence of someone working this long ago. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (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.