Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Sher

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 per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sher

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Google or in article to suggest WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of dubious notability for the last 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete No indication of wp:notability. No specifics in text indicate likehood or even possibility. Sidebar: section names have jokes in them as if this were in a sandbox. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' for the same reasons as above. Whomever wrote the article wasn't even taking the subject matter seriously and seemed as if the article writer was the person in question. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; minimal publication history.Novangelis (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And so what if he's an expert in a rare hormone-secreting tumour? WP:PROF fail. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 10 September 2011 (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.