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)

Jay Neitz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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


 * Delete per WP:TNT. He appears to pass WP:PROF 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)
 * Keep per WP:PROF and 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)
 * Keep. I am sympathetic to the WP:TNT case, but I think that the mess that's there can be cut down to a crisp, useful paragraph.  Meanwhile, he's a clear pass of 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. He meets WP:PROF at the least, and the concerns about the article in its nominated form now appear obsolete. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Russ Woodroofe. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.