Deletion of Richard G Smith

Comment: no internal evidence of notability in the article and no references, and the fact that it has been repeatedly re-created by the editor or his puppets without any significant changes indicates that there's an underlying agenda that has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PROF)

Comment: There is a geographer R G Smith with cites on GS of 542, 229, 61, 52. If this is the same Smith he could be heading for rof #1
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=author:rg-smith+cities This Google scholar search gives four papers with over 100 cites each (including the 500-cite one mentioned by Xxanthippe and Eric) and three more with over 50. It gets messy below that point, and the search is probably too specific to find all of Smith's work, but it's enough to convince me of a pass of #C1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: while we have no bright line test, under , he would pass due to the sheer number of citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: In that case passes rof #1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Enough highly-cited publications to meet #1, with an h-index of 15-20. Easy to get false positives, but enough actual hits if one looks carefully. Most widely cited pub with over 500 citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)