Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald S. Weinstein

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald S. Weinstein

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

No reliable sources found. fails Wikipedia's WP:BLP guidelines. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that you won't find a ton of sources on a Google search, and this article needs a lot of work on its tone, but I think that he meets WP:PROF and probably GNG. For all of the limitations of citation counts in clinical medicine, Weinstein has several publications cited more than 100 times. He's been president of USCAP and the ATA (may not get him over the bar by itself but I think it suggests notability). He held a named professorship at Rush, which is no mom-and-pop medical school. There's also a full-length 2005 article about him in the Arizona Daily Star; we could probably use it to flesh out some of the article with neutral information about his early life and career. I am having internet signal problems and I'm restricted to working from my mobile device right now, so I suspect that there is more to be found. I can add this stuff if my connection situation improves. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the claims of importance sounds OK to me. Sourcing here is poor with nothing independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but the newspaper article that my vote hinges on is behind a pay wall. If that article about a "visionary" is about him then I'd change my vote to keep. If it does not, I would change to delete. Ifnord (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. And there's sufficient coverage of him with regard to telehealth promotion. Natureium (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (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.