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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• No evidence of any special notability. Associate professor of an American University does not imply inherent notability and I see nothing else here that meets WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The references are all primary sources or links to articles he's been quoted in. No evidence of special notability. Macrowriter (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Weiss is a pretty common name and he doesn't seem to have a Google Scholar profile, but just searching GS for "Robert Weiss dermatology" will turn up a number of well-cited papers (386, 132, 123, 117, 111, 109, 105, 104, 85, 84, 80...). I know that clinical medicine is associated with higher citation counts, but I think this is enough for notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He appears to meet wp:academics in terms of highly cited articles. There aren't any awards that I can see, and the web page of the organization he is said to be president of does not list officers or its board so that isn't easily confirmed. The sources aren't terribly strong, however. I see this as squeaking by. LaMona (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (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.