Deletion of Robert C. Green

Comment: High cites on GS passes rof#C1 easily. Editors are at liberty to clean-up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: BLPs of researchers are determined according to the rof guidelines. If you disagree with them the best place to argue that is on those pages
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: The only significant problem I see is that the article reads like a |vanity piece written by a |single purpose account, and as such needs a cleanup
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SPA)

Comment: He doesn't seem to clearly meet any of the requirements of . He is quite well-cited on Google Scholar, but a lot of those papers have several authors, and he's in a field where having a lot of citations is common. Claims that he's innovative or important in his field aren't properly supported by evidence. I don't see in depth press coverage. And he doesn't have a full professorship, professional position, awards, or fellowships such as would justify notability. If there was clearer evidence about the importance of his contribution to science, or greater coverage of his work (e.g. in mainstream media articles), I would reconsider, but he seems a run of the mill researcher
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Others have already noted his highly cited research (only looking at papers where he is first author, I'm still seeing some with hundreds of citations). But also, several research results on which he was lead researcher have been reported in newspapers: higher risk of Alzheimer's for African-Americans in the http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81834766.html Boston Herald and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-328626.html Washington Post; plans for large drug studies in the http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-127027414.html Salt Lake Tribune and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-69737199.html Boston Herald; psychological consequences of genetic testing for Alzheimer's susceptibility in the http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-133591477.html Chicago Tribune; beneficial effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs on Alzheimer's in the http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120210141.html Chicago Tribune. So I think he passes #C1, #C7, and  for the nontrivial coverage of his research in multiple newspapers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Gscholar h-index of 42, which is very high, regardless of high-citation level of field. If we restrict to articles where he is first author, that is still a h-index of 20 or so, which I think is a very good argument for passing #C1. Otherwise, the fact that he is cited as a key researcher in New York Times articles in explaining various facets of Alzheimer's research contributes strongly to a pass of #C7, given the importance of Alzheimer's disease to the population at large
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)