Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jay Berman

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. czar 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jay Berman[edit]

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

puff piece almost certainly written by publicist. Lots of quotes from this guy here and there and references from organizations he's worked with, but no in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. There was some subterfuge by the article writer disguising the "daily journal" that his company published as "California's Daily Journal" including typeface making it look like a real third-party publication. The Dissident Aggressor 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. The biggest hint is the article includes a link to his CV. Searches on News provided 2 passing mentions and a PR; Newspapers and JSTOR returned nada; Highbeam and Scholar also returned some brief mentions. The best results were returned at Books, but nothing to show he comes close to meeting notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to what Onel5969 says, resumes or cvs can be useful as sources, to fill out the factual details of the life of a subject whose notability is shown by other sources. But in this case, we don't have other sources that actually demonstrate notability, and the article is very promotionally written. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found some links at Books, browser and Highbeam but there's not enough for a better article but feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 9 October 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.