Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Neitz

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Neitz

Jay_Neitz (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)

This is not a biography of Jay Neitz; rather, it appears to be a running commentary of ophthalmologic evidence presented by Jay Neitz. 332dash (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Thanks to the very nice work by Russ Woodroofe, I have no further basis to call for deletion of this biography. - 332dash (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:PROF#C1 at least, but nothing in the article is salvageable. It was created in 2009 as a foundational copyvio of https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090916133521.htm and when the copyvio was finally discovered in 2011 the solution was to cut it down to what we see here. But it's not a Wikipedia article and can't be made into one more easily than just throwing the whole thing away and starting over. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY. This is essentially a freshly-written new article, so I think the rationale for deletion is now moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. I am sympathetic to the
  WP:NPROF C1, and I think the Bishop professorship probably meets C5. I'll try and take a look at fixing + expanding over the next day or three. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment His wife Maureen Neitz also looks notable, and perhaps an enterprising Women in Red editor might be interested. I've finished a first pass at the article now, and hope that it looks better. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  talk) 20:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY thanks to Russ Woodroofe. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2020 (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.