Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Goldstein

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Goldstein

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

Fails WP:PROF and GNG. Article is entirely cited to person's own articles. My own searches of his bibliography didn't turn up notable papers. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant external discussions and not enough for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a small number of unimportant papers and 2 unimportant popular books. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is cited occasionally, such as the passing mention in "A Systematic Review of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Don't Assume It's Depression", but I couldn't find any substantive medical review of his work, and the number of passing mentions does not make up for the lack of coverage. Fails WP:GNG. He was definitely not central to work on CFS. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's nothing to suggest better notability for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 17 December 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.