Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewald Heer

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Tan | 39 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewald Heer

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

fails WP:BIO as being non-notable. Tan | 39 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tanthalas39 above; fails WP:BIO ~Sp K 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are zero none sources listed. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned. JBsupreme (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are papers of his on google books and google scholar. He appear to have been most active in the 1970s and 1980s, so I'm wondering if that explains the lack of google news results? It does read a bit like a resume, but there do seem to be significant indications of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, too. I think we have "indications of indications" of notability, if that makes sense, but nothing concrete that can shoehorn the article into the auspices of WP:BIO. I'm all for reconsidering if sources are shown... Tan | 39 18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding loads of reliable sources discussing his work at NASA and his life and background. Sometimes a google news search is simply inadequate. That is the case here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article currently hasn't many reliable sources listed, doesn't qualify it for deletion. The subject did really exist and I think he meets the notability criteria. Let's give the article more time to develop... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep until someone with access to academic databases opines. Has any of those opining to delete taken any of the steps in WP:BEFORE? A Google Scholar search shows many articles by the subject of the article, and a Google Books search finds numerous books by him.

For those and additional reasons, the subject likely satisfies WP:PROF—at first blush, the claims in the article give a presumption of satisfying criteria 1 and 7. Beyond that, he is likely to satisfy several other criteria, but given the time that he was active, is subject to FUTON bias. ^Bongo_matic 22:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildofMidnight's improvements. Sufficiently notable; the first author just wasn't familiar with wiki norms. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:54, 6 November 2009 (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.