Deletion of Richard M. Weiner

Comment: This AfD seems to have been infested by a large number of |single-purpose accounts, but that doesn't imply that we should do the opposite of what they say. The citation counts in Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=rm-weiner&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=phy&hl=en&lr=&safe=off two papers with over 100 citations, several others with over 50) look good enough for a pass of  #1 to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:PROF)

Comment: unless I'm mistaken, he fails all the  requirements. He certainly fails points 2-3 and 5-9. Points 1 and 4 are a bit less clear, but what is suspicious is that 9 of 14 footnotes cite works by him - failing the "''independent'' reliable sources" requirement, and that a further footnote uses ''an Amazon review'' (!) to validate his notability. We're left with two papers citing him (which isn't that remarkable when you've written nearly 200, and anyway don't actually discuss ''him'' but his work), a blurb for his book, and a couple of sources indicating he's been interviewed (which ''is not'' evidence of notability). What's strikingly lacking is independent reliable sources about Weiner and about the fact that he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)